Use more WebP, I guess.

• Lossless PNG, 635 kB:
  
• Lossless WebP, 469 kB:
  
• Lossy WebP, 110 kB:
  
• Lossy JPEG, 110 kB:

@movq@www.uninformativ.de The terminal colors change quite drastically, but not the photo. Interesting.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Yeah, no idea why that is. 🤔

Searching the web a bit brings up lots of threads where people hate WebP. The problem being that browsers support WebP but other programs tend to be problematic … ? 🤔

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I think WebP being new just hasn’t seen widespread adoption everywhere (yet) 🧐

@prologic@twtxt.net Yeah, but isn’t it from 2010? No widespread adoption after 15 years? Is there that much inertia? 🤔 On my box, everything just works – browser, GIMP, ImageMagick, imlib2, … 🤔

@prologic@twtxt.net @movq@www.uninformativ.de h.265 is from 13 years ago and support is still incredibly spotty (though it being proprietary probably has a lot to do with that)

also see: jpegxl’s adoption (three or six years old depending how you quantify it) which afaik is mostly attributed to google deciding not to put it in chrome (though they changed their stance recently iirc (webp, of course, did not have this problem since it was pushed so hard by google (the browser wars never ended)))

@movq@www.uninformativ.de @zvava@twtxt.net I think people get sick of everything changing all the time and so don’t bother adopting things to change when things are already good enough 🤷

Webp, though it has been around for a long while, wasn’t fully supported on all browsers until recently. The other formats have been in use for such a long time, proving to work just fine, that the advantages Webp provides haven’t been seemingly enough to merit a switch.

Google is also the one behind Webp, and, well, people don’t trust, nor like, them much.

@bender@twtxt.net that’s kind of what I was getting it initially yeah