this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
437 points (100.0% liked)
Memes @ Reddthat
990 readers
1 users here now
The Memes community. Where Memes matter the most.
We abide by Reddthat's Instance Rules & the Lemmy Code of Conduct. By interacting here you agree to these terms.
Rules
- No NSFW content
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No.
It losslessly compressed ~150GB of my PNGs to ~75GB, so I'd say it's definitely better space-wise.
It's absolutely not loseless at any kind of quality past web content
The WebP format supports fully lossless compression in addition to lossy compression. I used the lossless mode for my images.
Might want to check your math.
What do you mean? That's the total file size of the images before and after I converted them to webp.
How is that possible when google says it is 26% smaller?
Depending on the content of the image, the compression ratio can vary a lot. The 26% figure is probably for "normal" photos. My images are mostly a few shades of black with a few white pixels (using a camera as a radiation detector) and I guess WebP is way better at compressing that than PNG.
So… detected any yet?
Yep! Here's a few hours of combined exposure of the radiation from an americium source from a smoke detector.
image
If you'd upload this image with no description I'd be sure it's a photo of stars in the sky lol
Ooh neat!!
Thumbs up.
I need to hear more
I wanted to see if I could detect the radiation from a small sample of americium-241 that I pulled out of a smoke detector, so I put a Pi camera with no lens facing it and took exposures for a couple hours. After combining them and removing dead pixels I ended up with tons of tiny white specks where radiation had hit the camera sensor. I linked the final image below, and here's a timelapse video (compositing newer frames onto older frames to keep the radiation specks). video
What? Why? I see one number, I see another number, I report both numbers and because it's not what you're expecting, then "it must be my math skills"?
How does that make sense in any context?
Who are you? I didn’t tell you anything.
I'm Batman.
Yes.
(Ok there might be a lossy mode but that is barely better than jpg via mozjpeg)
Still no.
Technically yes by 26%.
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp
Smaller is not better.
26% smaller at the exact same quality is better.
Not if people can’t view or save them. PNG and JPEG are superior.
That's a problem with adoption not the format.
Like Betamax or laserdisc.
Bad analogy. That required hardware and factories to make it. I have several programs that deal with webp already.
If the only advantage is that it's a smaller file, that's absolutely no advantage at all.
How cheap is storage these days?
You could argue it is a small advantage, but you cannot say it is not an advantage.
I would contend the advantage is actually quite significant. From time to time I am inside some building with poor cell service, causing images to take longer to load. 26% smaller images would load noticeably faster in these poor conditions
You've yet to suggest a convincing disadvantage other than a lack of support. This will be a problem with anything new until it is widely adopted.
Some reports is that is saves space by half. that's a LOT of bandwidth. And for storage? It's cheaper now but as storage and bandwidth increases, so does the size of media. Higher def images and videos can now be easily and quickly shared so they are. Being able to decrease most images by half is an insanely huge advantage.
Seems like a skill issue.
What do you think the meme OP posted means?
That's what she said!! Hahaha amirite guys
Size isn't everything.
That’s what my ex used to tell me until she got cancer and passed away.