Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wahaha OP wrote

If it was supported by everything, I wouldn't care. But it's now a decade old and still not supported by anything installed on my system designed to actually view images.

Also, since the storage gains from webp are kinda marginal - there are even situations when a jpg will be way smaller than a webp, it just adds to the grudge. If it at least delivered on the promises, people would maybe care to support it. But the way it is, a decade after its introduction, it's just a nuisance.

Also, cutting out trackers, ads and the scripts enabling them you could save way more traffic, than by shaving off a kilobyte or two per picture. Last I checked webp doesn't even support progressive loading. That's the feature that loads jpgs line by line on a slow connection, so you might decide to cancel after seeing half the picture.

2

BlackWinnerYoshi wrote

Okay, sure, not many things support WebP images even after a decade of its existence, and that the storage savings are marginal compared to removing trackers/ads/scripts, but I think you messed up baseline and progressive JPEG definitions. This might be a misunderstanding, though.

Anyway, progressive loading actually makes JPEG load the full image, just with decreased quality, unlike baseline JPEG, which loads half of the image. Here is a comparison I have made.

(note: I halved those images using dd:

dd bs=[c/2] count=1 if=if.jpg of=of.jpg

where [c/2] is the number of bytes in the image, halved and rounded up.)

2

Wahaha OP wrote

Interesting, I didn't know the proper terminology for this feature.

2