JPG vs. WebP-converted-to-PNG

I'm not sure if I uploaded the best version of post #5509798

1. Go to https://www.artelista.com/en/artwork/1532948251732828-sueno-de-la-esposa-del-grabador.html
2. The image is a preview (1266 x 633)
3. Left-click on the image to get the full version (1700 x 850).
4. When I save the full version in Chromium or Firefox, the file has a .jpg extension, but is actually a WebP .
5. When I download the full version with wget , the file is a real JPG.

JPG: 619.4 KB
WebP: 396.7 KB

To me, it looks like the WebP has less pronounced compression artifacts.
Should I convert the WebP to PNG and upload it instead?

I don't think file sizes matter since WebP is designed to be more efficient in compression than JPG while maintaining quality.

I guess you can try zooming in both pictures way, way in until you can observe the visible compression artefacts.
Then, compare them side-by-side to see which image has less artefacts and uploading that instead.

There is probably some better way at comparing quality than eyeballing it, but that's what I know.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I guess you can try zooming in both pictures way, way in until you can observe the visible compression artefacts.
Then, compare them side-by-side to see which image has less artefacts and uploading that instead.

There is probably some better way at comparing quality than eyeballing it, but that's what I know.

This is what I do as well
I find it easier and faster to do so on my phone since it's just: Save, then Zoom with no extra steps