• londos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve seen this video but I went ahead and watched it again. I stand by that it’s a great comparison, as it clearly depends on what “better” means. Webp and consumer Beta have extremely marginal technical benefits that are mostly irrelevant to the average user, compared to the use cases people actually want, which are to record football games and use digital images in Paint or almost any other software. My comment to the first post was meant to say that, but I guess it didn’t come across that way.

        • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          WebP is definitely the VHS in this scenario - editing and creating images is NOT the most common use of image files. Not by a long shot. It’s for distribution of images, which is vastly more common a usage.

          And there is nothing technically deficient about WebP for editing either - it’s just a new image format that came to popularity in the last 18 months. I’m old enough to remember JPEG being new, and it had the same things said about it. If you’re doing anything serious, both JPEG and WebP are the distribution format of your master image that you keep for yourself in a bitmap format.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “pro” version of Betamax was good. It wasn’t the consumer version. The consumer version was no better than VHS.