Experimenting with WebP. I still have mixed feelings about it. The files are smaller, but even introduced 14 years ago (!) my instinct on new formats is they won’t be as universal as JPEG, MP3, and text, which will last forever.
@manton probably hidden behind the "playability" aspect? Like audio formats mostly are now. It's not like we all check to see what format the images in webpages are, so long as they are displayed.
@manton I had the same hesitation, but feels like there's been a lot of momentum for WebP recently. And it's supported everywhere, feels pretty safe for web delivery.
@manton If this is regarding Micro.blog, I hope you look into AVIF & JPEG XL too. Even newer than WebP, but they work well with the <picture> element.
@manton WebP is a pretty crappy format with some really bonkers limitations (like forced 8-bit YCbCr 4:2:0. You end up with an effective 6.5-bits, not 8). You can tell it was built without input from photographers or forethought about where images were going. JPEG XL has much better compression and supports HDR and higher bit depths (which have already arrived with our cameras). AVIF is better if you want to compress the heck out of something (unlikely in this case).
@manton Apple really improved their support for webp in the last few years. And most CMS take it without issue now.
@kkthompson Interesting, thanks for the feedback about WebP vs. XL. Ultimately, it doesn't seem that WebP really saves enough space for smaller photos.
@manton Show me a camera using WebP format and I’ll begin to pay attention. A universal format needs to work everywhere, not just the web.