while that will work for the majority of images, webp is not just a container for jpeg compression and allows for much more (animated webp for example is the near perfect replacement for animated gif yet very few applications support it).
The big advantage is that webm and webp can use a variety of formats really well and allows you to pick the one most appropriate for your content whilst still having a container format that supports it.
animated webp allows for video compression it can dramatically reduce file size while also giving the same benefits as apng.
It also allows for proper transparency so you don’t have to fiddle with export settings not to have layers overlap and you can use actual alpha values
you have pretty much the same compression as you have with a silent webm, but you don’t have to deal with audio channels and they behave more like traditional gifs, the big problem is that much like anything webp it’s not that widely supported (even a certain chat app that went through a username crisis doesn’t handle them well despite community feedback and obvious bandwith gains).
The big reason to use animated webp is where you’re in need of gif functionality but with the extra features and optimizations of modern image formats and dealing with video is straight overkill for the problem.
I also don’t know how well webm deals with transparency which animated webp handles really well and is an upgrade even compared to apng.
(also gimp just handles creation of animated webp just like animated gif so even if they’re not supported everywhere they can act as a nice intermediary for image sequences if you want to have them in a single file)
while that will work for the majority of images, webp is not just a container for jpeg compression and allows for much more (animated webp for example is the near perfect replacement for animated gif yet very few applications support it).
The big advantage is that webm and webp can use a variety of formats really well and allows you to pick the one most appropriate for your content whilst still having a container format that supports it.
Is animated webp better than .apng? Or is that what it contains?
animated webp allows for video compression it can dramatically reduce file size while also giving the same benefits as apng. It also allows for proper transparency so you don’t have to fiddle with export settings not to have layers overlap and you can use actual alpha values
While animated webp sounds nice, I’d pull an imgur and just use a webm without audio at that point since the compression works really well.
Or could I be completely OOTL and not realise that webm and webp are similar containers and could hold the same video format without sound?
you have pretty much the same compression as you have with a silent webm, but you don’t have to deal with audio channels and they behave more like traditional gifs, the big problem is that much like anything webp it’s not that widely supported (even a certain chat app that went through a username crisis doesn’t handle them well despite community feedback and obvious bandwith gains).
The big reason to use animated webp is where you’re in need of gif functionality but with the extra features and optimizations of modern image formats and dealing with video is straight overkill for the problem. I also don’t know how well webm deals with transparency which animated webp handles really well and is an upgrade even compared to apng.
(also gimp just handles creation of animated webp just like animated gif so even if they’re not supported everywhere they can act as a nice intermediary for image sequences if you want to have them in a single file)