On 23/11/2014 1:08, [email protected] wrote: > On Saturday, October 25, 2014 7:31:16 PM UTC-7, Andreas Gal wrote: >> The answer is D) WebP is simply not sufficiently better than JPEG >> to justify implementing it. >> >> https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2013/10/17/studying-lossy-image-compression-efficiency/ > >> >> > Citing a year old article about a compression format that's under > constant development?
There's been more recent updates. https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/ The test method, data, etc are public and the results can be verified or rerun with updated encoders. As you can see the conclusion is very different from your anecdotal results. -- GCP _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
