Comment by 🚀 stack
Re: "Is There a Resonable Image Format?"
To be fair, 16 bits per color is way too much -- in many if not most cases more than 9 bits of invisible noise, and will likely result in poor lossless compression. Perhaps useful for medical imaging but not much else.
People get carried away thinking they need more bits for quantized images and sound when in reality they need higher quantization rate, or misunderstand gammas and noise.
2025-08-18 · 9 months ago
2 Later Comments ↓
💎 pista · 2025-08-18 at 13:20:
JPEG is the only thing you will find supported everywhere. I degrade webp to JPEG in my proxy for specifically this reason. There is no webp in my proxy because there is no browser support for it on legacy hardware. On most operating systems for legacy hardware you can’t even view the file if you download it.
You *might* be able to convert the webp to something viewable if you can get a recent version of ImageMagick working on the OS.
But in general you need a relatively recent Windows/Linux/OSX to use webp. It’s off limits for legacy operating systems and most alternative operating systems. I’m not even sure the latest Wayfarer browser on Amiga/MorphOS can do webp. ArcaOS might do it depending on the version of Firefox they are using. QNX, no hope.
🚀 LucasMW · 2025-08-18 at 19:45:
If you are looking for a somewhat simple implementation, you can check qoi, but it is a new format, therefore not supported by much things. However, source is small
Original Post
Is There a Resonable Image Format? — An image format that is lightweight, efficient while retaining the highest quality possible? especially at low resolutions?