[X] My Assistant

For supposedly being the next gen great format, webp cannot be directly uploaded to google translator, iqdb, yandex, saucenao or any such image sites TODAY.

webp also has no thumbnail support out of the box on windows 10. I do not know for 11, but I doubt it.

both use cases are modern by any definition of the word. W10 is still a supported common OS.

It's not even close to a proper replacement or great format.

For supposedly being the next gen great format

That would be JXL and AVIF, but unlike with webp, the support isn't there.

webp cannot be directly uploaded to google translator, iqdb, yandex, saucenao or any such image sites TODAY.

[saucenao.com] https://saucenao.com/search.php?url=https%3...4862837_p0.webp

lens and yandex were good too.

out of the box on windows 10. I do not know for 11, but I doubt it.

supported out of box on 11. Should be on 10 too, but if it isn't it the official extension can be installed [apps.microsoft.com] here

It's not even close to a proper replacement or great format.

in purely technical terms it is a much better replacement for png, gif and jpeg.

lens and yandex were good too.

I'll stand corrected on those.
Most likely I used iqdb's "further search" redirect so it's been a while since i've tried lens or yandex directly.

Nevertheless, until google translate and iqdb accept webp directly, I will not respect it. It is a big joke that google tl does not.

But it's not my site to run, and I suppose the ~20% savings sound good to Tenboro, understandably.
This site updates very slowly, which was always nice, made it feel like the old internet.

WebP looks pretty awful for color images honestly.
https://e-hentai.org/s/c8bf5bfd5b/3038785-24 (still jpg)
https://e-hentai.org/s/bee0aa76f3/3146577-24 (webp almost dupe)

WebP looks pretty awful for color images honestly.

At least do an apples-to-apples comparison if you want to make statements like that.

Here's the same image converted to 1280x PNG (lossless), JPEG and WebP using the legacy JPEG and current WebP quality values. Just open them in three tabs with the PNG in the middle and compare yourself. Not only is the WebP closer to the lossless version, it is almost half the size of the JPEG (28kB vs 48kB).

As for the colors:

CODE

PNG -> WebP:

Channel distortion: RMSE
    red: 648.953 (0.00990238)
    green: 502.039 (0.00766063)
    blue: 587.323 (0.00896197)
    all: 582.561 (0.00888931)

  Channel distortion: NCC
    red: 0.998782
    green: 0.998835
    blue: 0.997796
    all: 0.998471

  Channel distortion: MAE
    red: 431.974 (0.0065915)
    green: 361.486 (0.00551592)
    blue: 407.974 (0.00622528)
    all: 400.478 (0.0061109)

PNG -> JPEG:

  Channel distortion: RMSE
    red: 671.641 (0.0102486)
    green: 539.765 (0.00823628)
    blue: 647.792 (0.00988467)
    all: 622.383 (0.00949695)

  Channel distortion: NCC
    red: 0.99871
    green: 0.998552
    blue: 0.997448
    all: 0.998237

  Channel distortion: MAE
    red: 440.627 (0.00672354)
    green: 368.067 (0.00561634)
    blue: 452.54 (0.00690531)
    all: 420.411 (0.00641507)

The WebP resample has less deviance on literally every color channel with every metric. (For Root Mean Squared Error and Mean Absolute Error, smaller is better. For Normalized Cross Correlation, larger is better.)

And while there are some parts that look sharper on the JPEG, there is also much more visible artifacting. You are free to prefer the JPEG if you wish, but you're not going to convince me that it's worth twice the filesize or even that it provides a better overall result.