Yes, and webp lossless is really good. JXL lossless is usually better, but either are better than png.
Random high quality jpeg I found of a screenshot of sheet music:
Original: 53.3 kb
JXL: 12.2 kb
Webp: 25.9 kb
AVIF: 22.6 kb
PNG: 47.3 kb
Most are not anywhere near as favorable, that happened to be the most recent thing in my camera roll. Let me try another:
Original PNG: 19.0 kb
JXL: 12.9 kb
Webp: 15.7 kb
AVIF: 14.9 kb
Finally, some larger and photographic content:
Original PNG: 318 kb
JXL: 185 kb
Webp: 247 kb
AVIF: 201 kb
Encoder efforts picked to be the highest that would finish in within a few seconds in Image Toolbox on my phone. Webp doesn’t go up as high so it was finishing quicker here, and PNG doesn’t have varying effort afaik
BTW JXL effort 1 lossless is insanely fast to encode (the order of a gigapixel per second) and also basically always smaller than PNG
Go with the times, PNG is old as dirt now. Everything supports Webp!
/edit: the downvotes are hilarious. People have no problem moving on from mp3 to FLAC or so, but somehow they form an emotional attachment to PNG?
Yes, and webp lossless is really good. JXL lossless is usually better, but either are better than png.
Random high quality jpeg I found of a screenshot of sheet music:
Original: 53.3 kb
JXL: 12.2 kb
Webp: 25.9 kb
AVIF: 22.6 kb
PNG: 47.3 kb
Most are not anywhere near as favorable, that happened to be the most recent thing in my camera roll. Let me try another:
Original PNG: 19.0 kb
JXL: 12.9 kb
Webp: 15.7 kb
AVIF: 14.9 kb
Finally, some larger and photographic content:
Original PNG: 318 kb
JXL: 185 kb
Webp: 247 kb
AVIF: 201 kb
Encoder efforts picked to be the highest that would finish in within a few seconds in Image Toolbox on my phone. Webp doesn’t go up as high so it was finishing quicker here, and PNG doesn’t have varying effort afaik
BTW JXL effort 1 lossless is insanely fast to encode (the order of a gigapixel per second) and also basically always smaller than PNG