11/18/2023 0 Comments Pixelmator pro converet to all white![]() ![]() Measured in figures you might have better image quality, but I doubt that the difference will be recognized by the average user. To achieve a noteworthy saving in the WebPs, you have to produce unreasonably big JPGs first, but the resulting WebP will be bigger than your more realistic old-school JPG before. The "good" JPGs on server 1 were produced by Lightroom with setting 70 and therefore match the pattern.)Īll things considered, the advantage of this "next-gen format" is hard to detect. (The Photoshop value 70 seems to correspond to 65 in Lightroom, a bit more than 80 in Affinity Photo and something around 90 in Pixelmator Pro. In Photoshop, a quality setting of 70 (of 100) and better leads to fairly or even much smaller WebPs, while the saving decreases with lower quality until there happens a turnaround to even bigger WebPs, approximately at 60. Meanwhile I did a bit more testing and found a clear correlation to the JPG compression rate. Is there any influence on the WebP conversion I might have Thanks for your feedback, glad to know I’m not alone. So I’d consider the WebP use on server 1 as clearly progressive, while server 2 essentially limits itself to fill up the webspace with bigger images that will never appear on a display. The JPG quality on server 1 is about the same (regardless the 41 lousy ones), the only difference is their smaller size of 900 x 600 px with an average file size of 150 kB. ![]() The source JPG’s size is around 1.200 x 800 pixel with a moderate compression rate and file sizes ranging between 100 and 500 kB with an average of 250 kB. Server 1 seems to confirm this assumption (the JPGs with bigger WebPs here are highly compressed 3rd party images) while server 2 ist acting completely strange. WebP smaller than JPG: 89 (on average less than 10 %)Īs far as I know, the quality of the source JPG has an impact on the WebP: highly compressed JPGs may lead to hardly smaller or even bigger WebPs, while the savings with high quality JPGs tend to be more spectacular. WebP bigger than JPG: 773 (on average 30–40 %) WebP smaller than JPG: 285 (on average 30–40 %) WebP bigger than JPG: 41 (on average more than 40 %) While integrating the WebP functionality was no problem at all, I’m massively confused by the results: one server works as expected, the other one does the sheer opposite. Both servers run on identical system configurations and PW versions (3.0.184). I’ve recently set up 2 PW installations for using WebP images (following this explanations, strategy 3). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |