In my limited testing, exporting as a JPG can sometimes lead to a smaller file size than exporting to WEBP. Not always. I'm not sure if there is just some "point of diminishing returns" or whatever where JPG actually becomes more efficient or what.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

WebP can be either lossless or lossy. These two modes achieve objectively better compression than PNG or JPEG, respectively. Obviously, you need to pay attention to the settings to get the best file size for your use case.

[–] weker01@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That is actually something I really dislike. Lossless and lossy formats should be immediately distinguishable.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

What if I told you JPEG can be lossless too? By dialing the quality to 100% and using the rare setting of 4:4:4 RGB to prevent loss through colorspace conversion, you can create JPEG files that store any 8bit picture losslessly. It will be larger than a BMP for some of them but that is correct for any lossless format.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

I’m not sure if there is just some “point of diminishing returns” or whatever where JPG actually becomes more efficient or what.

There is, but it's at high quality levels. If you're using WebP for thumbnails or other lower quality situations (Which was the original intended use) then WebP will give you better quality than JPEG for a given filesize.

For lossless uses it's even better, the format is much more limited than PNG, but in the common cases it beats it.