Copy image? Nope, here’s the link instead.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
161 points (77.3% liked)
memes
21943 readers
2106 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How to determine if webp is lossless? Old format easy, jpg vs. png.
As an expert in image processing:
.png supports pretty extreme compression, while a jpeg can also be lossless. The extensions tell you nothing except which family of algorithms was used to encode/compress/store them.
Webp though, webp is only used for the internet. I mean, you could use it other places, I guess.
You're an "expert in image processing" but don't understand the fundamental difference between the .jpg and .png image formats or the encoding and compression algorithms underpinning them? I find that doubtful.
.png only compresses efficiently when used as intended, which is for screenshots or other images with large areas of solid colors, where each pixel is most likely the same color value as its neighbors. In this use case, it's much more efficient than .jpg. However, .jpg is much more efficient than .png when it's used as it's intended; encoding images of the real world, like images taken with a digital camera, where each pixel has a slightly different color value than the ones next to it.
You can test this yourself by taking a picture with your phone's camera, then copying the image, converting the copy to the other file format, then comparing the file sizes. Next, repeat the process with a screenshot of a web page or a simple Paint drawing. You'll see that the camera image is smaller as a .jpg but the screenshot is smaller as a .png.
Nothing the other guy said contradicts this? Nor shows a lack of understanding this?
Yeah they didn't say anything about efficiency lol, where the hell did all that come from
png also compresses better when you lower the color depth, the number of colors. And you forgot png has alpha which is a big deal IMO.