You're embedding PDF previews on a website. JPG works but the pages are heavy. PNG looks great but doubles the page weight. WebP solves both problems if your audience's browsers are modern.
What WebP brings
WebP is Google's image format, released in 2010 and widely supported since around 2020. It compresses better than JPG (25–35% smaller for similar quality), supports transparency like PNG, and handles animations like GIF. Modern browsers all support it; very old browsers don't.
When to pick WebP
Use WebP for web embedding where page weight matters: knowledge base previews, image-heavy landing pages, PDF galleries. The size savings are real and the quality is high.
Don't use WebP for legacy contexts: emailed attachments (some clients render poorly), printing pipelines (still JPG and TIFF country), embedded systems.
Convert via the hub
Flint's convert hub outputs WebP. One file per page. Compress further with the quality slider; the default is balanced for web use.
For a side-by-side comparison: a 10-page PDF at 200dpi might give you 5MB as JPGs, 12MB as PNGs, 3.5MB as WebPs. Real savings without obvious quality loss.
Transparency in WebP
Like PNG, WebP supports alpha channels. If your PDF has transparency, the WebP preserves it. If the PDF has an opaque white background (most do), the WebP will too — same caveats as PNG output, just smaller files.
FAQ
Does every browser show WebP?
All modern browsers. Internet Explorer doesn't (but it's effectively dead). If supporting very old browsers matters, fall back to JPG with `<picture>` elements.
Email-friendly?
Mostly. Modern email clients render WebP; older ones may not. JPG is still safer for email attachments.
Lossy or lossless?
WebP supports both. The converter picks lossy by default for the best size/quality trade-off.
Is the quality really better than JPG?
At equal file size, yes — WebP shows less compression artefacting on smooth gradients and edges.
Web-optimised, smaller files. Convert your PDF to WebP for modern web use.