Archives: [soy / date / pol / r9k / incel / qa / tech / q / raid / a / int / x / r / v / mtv / mickey / news / asp / an / biz / bait / bunker / caca / chive / fit / fnac / g / gem / giga5 / hobby / jak / jiren / ohio / plier / ptb / sci / shrk / sneed / ss / sude / tv / yyyyyyy / b / bant / fap / giga / health / muv / nate / qst / soya / suggest / webm]
Update 2026-09-28: New! Check out the Flash Flash Archive!
Update 2026-09-25: Over 80k posts from the Internet Archive spanning 2021-2023, including full-size images, have been imported.
Update 2026-09-24: Search with AI: Type a natural search query to find relevant images. Click 'Similar' on any file to find visually similar images.
Update 2026-09-24: Over 2.3 million posts from the Kolyma-era Log Warehouse have been imported into the archive.
  • Use keywords, "exact phrases", and wildcards (*)
  • Exclude -terms or -"exact phrases" in text fields
  • Unquoted words match word stems; quoted phrases match verbatim
  • Use comparison operators for numeric fields (e.g. >=5)
  • AI Type a natural search query to find relevant images
  • Example: Find posts on /a/ with images 1920 pixels wide and 1080 pixels tall.
On these boards
Your latest searches
Capcode
Show Posts
Embed Type
Deleted Posts
Post Type
Data Source
Results
Favorites
Order
[4 / 1 / 1]
316KiB, 1920x1920, 0987413.png
View Same Similar Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Chud No.43732 View View Original Report
should I convert the jpg images on my website to webp? I tested converting an image to webp and it has the same pixel size but with much lesser KB (900 kb to 200 kb) and it looks almost the same, it could save me a lot of very good bandwidth, or, should I keep using the same jpg files? which file format will always be supported? my website is currently 15 MB but i want it to be way smaller
×