What the goddamn ratnipples is this cunting shitfilth and wh

There is nothing wrong with using WebP. In fact, I find it to be a good thing that there is now a widespread image format that has the option of using lossy compression with transparency.

JPG uses lossy compression, but no transparency support. PNG has transparency support, but it's lossless compression isn't good for every kind of image.

>>60212412
Seems to me like a good idea.

>>60212412
mozz is still developing shit for it to be used on firefox

The windows libraries for it work, but suck. They don't work for animations,

but they work, which is fine

>>60212540
This shit is just there to break compatibility with other browsers, not to save you up to .3% on your data plan bills

i honestly never heard of it until youve mentioned it OP. maybe youre just trying to shill this shit FOR FREE

>>60212565
>full rgba for animated images
only reason I would use it

Otherwise, videos are usually smaller after a certain size

>>60212412
I got a photoshop plugin for it that works half the time. Yay?

>>60212412
Look, >>60212489 is right.

The site you're posting on would save a big chunk of money in static hosting bandwidth by generating image/webp thumbnails instead of png or jpeg ones.

I did this when it was still incredibly new, also very early HTTP/2 adopter back when it was SPDY, which more than halved page loading times because a page like this with tons of small thumbnails is basically the best-case-scenario for its better pipelining.

The quality is sometimes slightly lower, but who cares for thumbnails? They'll click through for originals if they want to, but the vast majority of traffic (that isn't mirrorbots) doesn't.

t. former chan admin

File: Screenshot_20170504-105136.png (421KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1440x2560px

>.png
:^)