• snek_boi@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thanks for the recommendation. I didn’t know such little reduction in quality meant so much savings with JPGs and PNGs!

      Yeah. Avif gave me some nasty artifacts on some pictures that I wanted to save long term. Not using it anytime soon… or at least until those issues are fixed.

      Why do you dislike WebP? I can see that it isn’t widely used, so if longevity is my goal JPGs and PNGs are a better bet. But am I missing something about WebP?

  • My photo library is an assortment and I’ve only ever run into issues sending png’s. It truly doesn’t matter if you’re able to edit the file type. Personally, I’m not big with WebM files as they don’t run well with my preferred muisic player on mobile though.

  • holdengreen
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    don’t think you can really convert them properly without losing data

    • Soviet Snake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Afaik webp are shit pushed by googlez unsure how good avif is.

      • holdengreen
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Think I just watched something about avif… it’s optimized for modern monitors with much better colors. and it’s an open standard. so I would def use it over jpeg if I can get away with it

      • Cold Hotman@nrsk.no
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s not shit, it’s just not significantly better or smaller than a properly configured JPEG compressor. I guess it’s about point of view.

    • snek_boi@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Unless I’m missing something, I believe both WebP and AVIF have lossless compression as options. Of course, choosing that results on heavier files, but at least there’s the option.