PS and WEBP are versatile file formats that outdo each other regarding in-built capabilities, usage areas, or functionalities. Choosing a particular file format over the other implies sacrificing the versatility of the unselected file format.
This article compares PS and WEBP regarding transparency support, image size, image quality, structure, storage, browser support, compression, animation support, and web performance.
When is WEBP better than PS?
WEBP images are richer, smaller graphic files compressed using effective lossless and lossy compression techniques, while PS images are uncompressed, larger files, reducing search engine optimization. WEBP is thus suitable for creating smaller and more attractive web imagery for SEO and increased user experience.
The WEBP file type provides significantly smaller images, inherently supports transparency and animation, and enhances web performance, making it the best option for creating most web images or animated content.
When is PS better than WEBP?
PS images are known for their portability, scalability, accuracy, and precision, while WEBP images are known for their smaller sizes and information-rich content. Hence, PS images suit professional printing tasks, including graphic design, technical documentation, and commercial printing.
The advantages of PS images include scalability, which ensures vector graphics are displayed precisely and optimally on various screens. It also assimilates multiple images at varying color depths and sizes, resulting in high-quality, visually appealing, and detectable printouts.
PS versus WEBP Table Comparison
Element | WEB | PS |
Transparency | WEBP supports transparency | PS does not support transparency |
File Size | Smaller files than PS files, pixelated, resizable up to a specific limit. | Files are larger due to their uncompressed status. |
Image Quality | Supports 24-bit RGB color and an 8-bit alpha channel; Supports RBG, RGBA, and YUV pixels: High-quality images | Supports 1-bit, 2-bit, 4-bit, and 8-bit per pixel; It supports monochrome, CIE, CMYK, RGB, and grayscale colors. |
Performance | WEBP files result in a higher performance than PS files due to their smaller sizes and they are optimized for web use. | PS files result in lower web performances than WEBP due to their large uncompressed files and the fact that they are not optimized for web use. |
Structure | A raster graphics format, images defined using pixels, comprises block prediction. | PostScript (PS) files are vector-based, allowing them to be scaled without losing quality. |
Animation | Uses WEBP-A variant to support animation | Lack of inherent support for animation |
Storage | Requires less storage space than PS files. | Requires more storage space than WEBP files. |
Compression | It uses both lossless and lossy compression techniques | No compression is needed; A page description language |
Browser Support | They are supported by 96.86% of modern browsers, namely Firefox, Opera, Safari, Vivaldi, Discord, Edge, and Brave, except for Internet Explorer. | Only supported by Google Chrome which needs browser extension plug-ins. |
Differences and similarities between WEBP and PS images
PS file format and WEBP are identical in terms of image quality, storage mediums, and partly browser support. However, both file formats differ in compression, transparency, animation support, structure, file size, and browser support.
Transparency
PS files do not support transparency when printing vector graphics images. On the other hand, the WEBP file format supports alpha channel transparency at varying levels through a lossless method. WEBP further supports lossy transparency.
While PS’s partially transparent or translucent images can be rendered as fully opaque and transparent pixels, WEBP bitmapped file supports multi-sample pixels by encoding files with an alpha channel, allowing data transparency. The alpha channel transparency in a WEBP file is linked to all pixels, specifying the file’s transparency level.
Compared to PS files, the transparency feature in WEBP makes it a versatile format for creating logos, illustrations, and web images. WEBP allows website designers to create images with varying transparency levels.
File Size
WEBP files are relatively smaller than PS files. PS files mostly store or transmit uncompressed data or files of varying color depths and sizes, making them larger than WEBP files. The WEBP format uses efficient predictive or VP8/VP8L coding to compress its files into smaller sizes than PS files.
Unlike raster graphics WEBP files, PS scripting language can be scaled up or down to suit varying screen sizes optimally. Still, while scalability might be possible for PS and not WEBP, multiple PS files are larger than WEBP files.
Since the vector graphics PS files are more significant than the bitmapped WEBP files, consider using WEBP file format when file size is a factor to be considered. Its files are lighter and suitable for web imageries as they enhance user experience and improve web responsiveness.
Image Quality
The resolution levels and bit depths of PS and WEBP files allow both formats to generate highly detailed images. PS and WEBP images are both high-resolution and low-resolution files. However, WEBP image resolution depends on the original image's resolution, which is encrypted into the WEBP format.
PS files or images allow printing resolutions of 300 or 600 pixels per inch, making it a high-resolution file format. The PS's high resolution makes its images more detailed and sharp during and after printing. However, users can also opt for low-resolution printing to allow large images to be viewed from a distance.
PS contains high-quality images, although it uses varying data representations compared to WEBP, a raster format. While PS supports bit depths 1, 2, 4, and 8 bits per pixel, WEBP supports a bit depth of 24-bit RGB color with an 8-bit alpha channel. Thus, WEBP images are detailed and of higher quality than PS images.
Both file formats lose image quality under different circumstances. WEBP images degrade under lossy compression, while lossless WEBP preserves image quality. Conversely, the PS files’ high-quality stature is lost with excessive scaling. Hence, choose WEBP instead of the PS file format when quality matters.
Performance
PostScript files are comparatively larger than WEBP files. While WEBP supports a wider color range than PS files, WEBP files are smaller and load faster than PS files. This makes the PS file format inferior to the WEBP file format regarding website performance.
WEBP's small file sizes improve website responsiveness, resulting in a superior user experience and optimized search engines compared to PS files. Choose the versatile WEBP over PS for increased website performance.
Structure
The PS file format uses vector graphics, while WEBP uses raster graphics. The PS file format structure includes a header, color mode data, image data, mask, and layer information, alongside other information or elements.
The PostScript header contains information concerning the PS file, including the resolution, version number, and type. Conversely, the color mode data comprises information regarding color depth and color mode. PS files support CIE, CMYK, RGB, and grayscale colors.
The PS image data contains the actual file or image data in either a vector or raster graphics format. It specifies images using geometry information such as commands instead of individual pixels. PS allows geometrical specifications to be printed at the maximum number of details possible.
The PostScript file also contains information about its mask and layers. Finally, the file format's structure includes information on manuscripts, like clipping paths, guides, and notes. The specifications of PS files make them complex for conversion and may lead to quality degradation.
Conversely, a WEBP is a bitmap file format that stores or defines images using pixels. The WEBP file format structure comprises block prediction. The values from three blocks predict each block from the left and above.
Block decoding follows a raster scan sequence, namely top to bottom and left to right. The four basic block prediction modes are TrueMotion, DC, vertical, and horizontal.
As RFC 1168 describes, the bit numbering in a WEBP file chunk diagram commences from 0 for the most crucial bit. The file's size limit is 24 bits for height and width. The bit stream is attuned to VP8. Thus, PS and WEBP are compared only in terms of 8-bit and RGB support.
WEBP supports RBG, RGBA, and YUV pixels. The WEBP format mostly uses RGB (Red, Green, Blue) to display screen images. Three color channels are in each pixel. It also supports RGBA (Red, Green, Blue, and Alpha).
Animation
PS files do not support animation. They are designed for static content and lack multimedia and interactivity capabilities that support images or files compared with WEBP. PS files are intended for printing, making them unsuitable for screen-based content.
In contrast, WEBP supports animation using a WEBP animated variant (WEP-A) compatible with animated images. A single animated WEBP file can merge lossless and lossy frames. While WEBP might not be the best file format for animation, it should be preferred to PS, which hardly supports animation.
Storage
PS files are larger than WEBP files, necessitating more storage space than the WEBP file format. They store uncompressed data as prearranged layouts, graphics, and texts.
Conversely, WEBP files are smaller because the file format stores compressed data or images using VP8/VP8L video codec and predictive coding. However, irrespective of the storage space needed, the storage period for PS and WEBP files depends on the storage medium used, conditions, and handling process.
The uncompressed PS files and the compressed WEBP image information can be stored forever in HDD, CDN, file systems, cloud, Base64 encoding, and sub-directory programs, folders, or files. Choose WEBP instead of PS when storage space is a factor to consider.
Compression
PS files illustrate an uncompressed file format. They do not need compression, either lossy or lossless. PostScript is a scripting language that controls the use of É…B and Run Length Encoding compression. Users do not need to configure the plotter to use any compression method.
Conversely, WEBP uses lossy and lossless compression methods. Lossless WEBP images preserve all image data, leading to quality retention. WEBP uses the VP8 video codec to compress lossless images and predictive coding during lossy compression, resulting in smaller images than the uncompressed PS images.
Browser Support
The PS file format was popular in the 1980s, but its popularity has significantly dwindled with next-generation file formats like WEBP. Most browsers, such as Apple Safa, do not support PS files. Only Google Chrome offers extensions like PostScript Compiler and Viewer that support PS files.
Other modern browsers, such as Opera, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, and Bra, are incompatible with PS files but compatible with WEBP. WEBP is only incompatible with Internet Explorer and older browsers. This makes WEBP 93.3% more popular among top web browsers supporting the PS file format.
As a result, WEBP's broader browser support and compatibility outperform PS scripting language's adoption and popularity across different browsing platforms. Therefore, when looking at extensive browser support, choose WEBP rather than PS.
Conclusion
PS and WEBP file formats provide high-quality and high-resolution images, although each reigns supreme in its field of application.
PS files are scalable and can be displayed optimally without losing quality, making them ideal for generating documents that require scaling or printing at high resolutions.
WEBP files are significantly smaller than PS files, making them a versatile file format choice for web imagery as they improve user experience and enhance web performance.