>>205 Yeah, this thing is underrated. I found this on a google search: "Animated WebP files support independent frame durations, allowing each frame to have a unique display time in milliseconds, unlike the 10ms restriction in GIFs." so there should be room for even more optimization of animations.
Compression isn't great compared to full blown video codecs but considering it's meant to replace GIF it does its job well. Too bad about the complexity, that seems to be gatekeeping it from most people, we really need some kind of "animated webp for retards" github, even for me lol.
>>205 GIMP was able to make a GIF about 1MB in filesize, ezgif got it to ~400KB. So Animated Webp achieved like 75% better compression efficiency over GIF, at least for this sample. I imagine this is the norm if the source is a video with millions of colors...
>>482 In 10-20% of cases it might not be a huge improvement over JPG but the majority of the time it's 20-30% better and half the time it can even compete with JXL. That last part made me rethink advocating for modern image formats because WebP is incrediby mature/stable/fine-tuned. JXL will do the same but when? 2030? 2035? WebP is also more decode friendly than JXL so it can benefit pretty much everyone no matter how terribly low-spec their phone/computer is.
WebP can also compress PNG images with 0 loss in quality as well. Most websites do not support this yet or convert lossless WebP to lossy Webp. Umigalaxy is one of the very few websites out there that will let you upload a lossless WebP and not apply any lossy compression to it. cwebp -lossless -z 9 -m 6 -q 100 in.png -o out.webp for %a in (in.png) do @for %b in (out.webp) do @set/a p=100-(100*%~zb/%~za)&echo % smaller I got a whopping 32% filesize reduction with picrel. From ~3 MB to ~2 MB, about an entire MB chunk wiped out.
There's also animated WebP, which I don't fully understand yet, but it obliterates GIF.
So idk man, "WEBP SUCKS ASS" is a pretty facebook-tier/MIGA way of looking at WebP in my humble opinion.
