Are images on websites in .webp format better compressed (smaller file size and less image loss) than compressed jpg?

Which is better: images/graphics in .webp or in compressed .jpg?

(2 votes)
Loading...

Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
3 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Valentin1720653
1 year ago

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/compression?hl=de

So as I can read it out, the compression forms are very of the result, but the webp conversion is smaller with the same quality.

I am not an expert on compression algorithms, but there are the .webp in different forms, including loss-affected, and also loss-free. Jpg is, in my knowledge, always lost.

In jpg, the Huffmann coding is also used, which is also ancient, and since then there is certainly better coding possibilities than to create a Huffmann tree.

I therefore think that .webp is simply significantly newer, but the much more efficient compression will be.

Only and alone could it be a disadvantage that an editor may not display .wepb. .jpg is so widespread that virtually any program can represent this image format.

Valentin1720653
1 year ago
Reply to  Kleosa

Yes, that will be due to the format approx. 30 percent smaller.