> In the past we had JPG our PNG: life was good. Simple. Easy.
Except for if you wanted a compressed image with transparency for the web, in which case you had to sacrifice one of those two things or use a different format besides those two.
> Then dumbfucks decided that it made sense to cram both lossy and lossless under the same umbrella.
> I don't understand the level of confusion and cluelessness that had to happen for such a dumb choice to have been made.
Besides many end users not caring which one it is as long as they recognize the file type and can open it, I found a few interesting reasons for having both in the same format from a simple web search. One was the possibility of having a lossy background layer with a lossless foreground layer (particularly in an animation).
JPEG XL also decided to support either lossless or lossy compression, so it wasn't just WebP that decided it made sense.
Except for if you wanted a compressed image with transparency for the web, in which case you had to sacrifice one of those two things or use a different format besides those two.
> Then dumbfucks decided that it made sense to cram both lossy and lossless under the same umbrella.
> I don't understand the level of confusion and cluelessness that had to happen for such a dumb choice to have been made.
Besides many end users not caring which one it is as long as they recognize the file type and can open it, I found a few interesting reasons for having both in the same format from a simple web search. One was the possibility of having a lossy background layer with a lossless foreground layer (particularly in an animation).
JPEG XL also decided to support either lossless or lossy compression, so it wasn't just WebP that decided it made sense.