Everyone fully missing the point here. This is the banner image for [email protected] (that’s not where we are right now for the record), and it has a normal JPEG size of 7.7MB. When it’s served as WebP it’s 3.8MB. OP is correct that this is very stupid and wasteful for a web content image. It’s a triple-monitor 1440p wallpaper that’s used verbatim, and it should instead be compressed down to be bandwidth-friendly. I was able to get it to 1.4MB at JPEG quality 80, and when swapping it out in dev tools and performing A/B testing I can’t tell the difference. This should be brought to the attention of a mod on that community so it can stop sucking people’s data for no reason.
It could be resized too. 5120x1440 is way too big for a website banner. There’s no reason to go more than double the size it will actually be displayed at. That would bring it down to a couple hundred KB.
Everyone fully missing the point here. This is the banner image for [email protected] (that’s not where we are right now for the record), and it has a normal JPEG size of 7.7MB. When it’s served as WebP it’s 3.8MB. OP is correct that this is very stupid and wasteful for a web content image. It’s a triple-monitor 1440p wallpaper that’s used verbatim, and it should instead be compressed down to be bandwidth-friendly. I was able to get it to 1.4MB at JPEG quality 80, and when swapping it out in dev tools and performing A/B testing I can’t tell the difference. This should be brought to the attention of a mod on that community so it can stop sucking people’s data for no reason.
It could be resized too. 5120x1440 is way too big for a website banner. There’s no reason to go more than double the size it will actually be displayed at. That would bring it down to a couple hundred KB.
Thank you!
I got it to 47 KB after resizing it to 850px by 239px, heh