Who's using .webp over .jpg ?

[BrasSmonkey]

Why not ?

i know this is probably bullshit. some images don't show for me. i look and web fucking p

According to caniuse, 96.3% of browsers currently support the WebP image format. That would include Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. The WebP image format is not supported only by Internet Explorer 11 and the KaiOS browser. However, both browsers account for just 0.577% of the market share

Have you tried clearing your browser cache

you try prunes?

[DonMK]

I am going to start using webp as much as I can

[tacnet]

If you want a free (for non-commercial use) converter then this is pretty handy https://www.nchsoftware.com/imageconverter/index.html

When you combine webp with lazyloading it really makes a difference

Also, another thing I didnt realise until recently is that you dont need javascript anymore to lazyload images. You can just add a loading="lazy" to your image tag like so :-

<img border="0" src="https://www.example.com/myimage.webp" loading="lazy">

Theres around 93% browser support and any browsers that dont support it will just load the image in the normal way. Remember NOT to lazyload any of your above the fold images as you want those displayed immediately

[Klint]

If you want a free (for non-commercial use) converter then this is pretty handy https://www.nchsoftware.com/imageconverter/index.html

When you combine webp with lazyloading it really makes a difference

Also, another thing I didnt realise until recently is that you dont need javascript anymore to lazyload images. You can just add a loading="lazy" to your image tag like so :-

<img border="0" src="https://www.example.com/myimage.webp" loading="lazy">

Theres around 93% browser support and any browsers that dont support it will just load the image in the normal way. Remember NOT to lazyload any of your above the fold images as you want those displayed immediately

Exactly what iw as going to ask here

[voyeurz]

New scripts will work with webp older ones will catch up if they do updates

[tacnet]

This really does work you know. Since we switched this over to webp https://www.tacamateurs.com (and did a few other tweaks) our click thrus to the join page have shot up nearly 10% !

That means you now get 10% more productivity from your hard earned affiliate traffic with TAC

[vblogger]

This really does work you know. Since we switched this over to webp https://www.tacamateurs.com (and did a few other tweaks) our click thrus to the join page have shot up nearly 10% !

That means you now get 10% more productivity from your hard earned affiliate traffic with TAC

Nice going

[XpressPete]

Switching over my images to webp

[TheButcher]

Switching over my images to webp

I dot have that many to worry about so going for it too

[monsta]

You convinced me to go webp

[Brian]

Not a bad thing make pages load faster spend less on hosting.

[BrasSmonkey]

An animated WebP image requires higher CPU usage than a GIF image does. The decoding of a lossy WebP image may take 2.2 times longer than that of a GIF image. If the image is lossless-compressed, it takes 1.5 times longer. Many websites have no support for uploading a WebP image yet.

Cons

Not supported by all browsers—Although WebP has the lion’s share of browsers, there are still some that don’t support it (Internet Explorer is slow to adopt it, which is on brand for Internet Explorer). There is a workaround that involves creating a fallback image in HTML, but creating a whole other file as a backup sometimes negates all the extra storage space you save using WebP in the first place.

Quality is still reduced—Not so much a disadvantage of WebP as a disadvantage to all lossy compression, the quality of your image is still reduced. For most people, the amount is negligible, but for visual sites like photography or graphic design portfolios you want your visual quality at maximum.

[tacnet]

An animated WebP image requires higher CPU usage than a GIF image does. The decoding of a lossy WebP image may take 2.2 times longer than that of a GIF image. If the image is lossless-compressed, it takes 1.5 times longer. Many websites have no support for uploading a WebP image yet.

Cons

Not supported by all browsers—Although WebP has the lion’s share of browsers, there are still some that don’t support it (Internet Explorer is slow to adopt it, which is on brand for Internet Explorer). There is a workaround that involves creating a fallback image in HTML, but creating a whole other file as a backup sometimes negates all the extra storage space you save using WebP in the first place.

Quality is still reduced—Not so much a disadvantage of WebP as a disadvantage to all lossy compression, the quality of your image is still reduced. For most people, the amount is negligible, but for visual sites like photography or graphic design portfolios you want your visual quality at maximum.

There's lots of things that IE doesnt support but given that its no longer being developed (last release was 2013) and only accounts for around 0.5% of users, most webmasters ignore it.

I think with regards to .gif you are referring to animations rather than still images. When it comes to still images, lossless Webp images are 26% smaller than png and lossy webp images are 25% to 34% smaller than comparable JPEG images at equivalent SSIM quality index. See https://developers.google.com/speed/webp

If you are allowing users to upload images then its best to use jpg (as most users will have images in that format) but then simply use a conversion tool like cwebp to convert your tumbnails into webp format

If you are still unsure then I suggest testing your page speed here https://pagespeed.web.dev/ and see what google recommends. One of the first recomendations is almost always to convert your images to webp format

[BrasSmonkey]

An animated WebP image requires higher CPU usage than a GIF image does. The decoding of a lossy WebP image may take 2.2 times longer than that of a GIF image. If the image is lossless-compressed, it takes 1.5 times longer. Many websites have no support for uploading a WebP image yet.

Cons

Not supported by all browsers—Although WebP has the lion’s share of browsers, there are still some that don’t support it (Internet Explorer is slow to adopt it, which is on brand for Internet Explorer). There is a workaround that involves creating a fallback image in HTML, but creating a whole other file as a backup sometimes negates all the extra storage space you save using WebP in the first place.

Quality is still reduced—Not so much a disadvantage of WebP as a disadvantage to all lossy compression, the quality of your image is still reduced. For most people, the amount is negligible, but for visual sites like photography or graphic design portfolios you want your visual quality at maximum.

There's lots of things that IE doesnt support but given that its no longer being developed (last release was 2013) and only accounts for around 0.5% of users, most webmasters ignore it.

I think with regards to .gif you are referring to animations rather than still images. When it comes to still images, lossless Webp images are 26% smaller than png and lossy webp images are 25% to 34% smaller than comparable JPEG images at equivalent SSIM quality index. See https://developers.google.com/speed/webp

If you are allowing users to upload images then its best to use jpg (as most users will have images in that format) but then simply use a conversion tool like cwebp to convert your tumbnails into webp format

If you are still unsure then I suggest testing your page speed here https://pagespeed.web.dev/ and see what google recommends. One of the first recomendations is almost always to convert your images to webp format

im not

[Austin]

An animated WebP image requires higher CPU usage than a GIF image does. The decoding of a lossy WebP image may take 2.2 times longer than that of a GIF image. If the image is lossless-compressed, it takes 1.5 times longer. Many websites have no support for uploading a WebP image yet.

Cons

Not supported by all browsers—Although WebP has the lion’s share of browsers, there are still some that don’t support it (Internet Explorer is slow to adopt it, which is on brand for Internet Explorer). There is a workaround that involves creating a fallback image in HTML, but creating a whole other file as a backup sometimes negates all the extra storage space you save using WebP in the first place.

Quality is still reduced—Not so much a disadvantage of WebP as a disadvantage to all lossy compression, the quality of your image is still reduced. For most people, the amount is negligible, but for visual sites like photography or graphic design portfolios you want your visual quality at maximum.

There's lots of things that IE doesnt support but given that its no longer being developed (last release was 2013) and only accounts for around 0.5% of users, most webmasters ignore it.

I think with regards to .gif you are referring to animations rather than still images. When it comes to still images, lossless Webp images are 26% smaller than png and lossy webp images are 25% to 34% smaller than comparable JPEG images at equivalent SSIM quality index. See https://developers.google.com/speed/webp

If you are allowing users to upload images then its best to use jpg (as most users will have images in that format) but then simply use a conversion tool like cwebp to convert your tumbnails into webp format

If you are still unsure then I suggest testing your page speed here https://pagespeed.web.dev/ and see what google recommends. One of the first recomendations is almost always to convert your images to webp format

Microsoft's Edge is a big improvement over Internet Explorer, I want to use the latest tools not the ones out dated so going to move to webp and stop uploading .gif and jpg's.