4 ms·

"AVIF is currently better at low image quality. JPEG XL is currently better at medium and high image qualities, including the range of image quality used in the

"AVIF is currently better at low image quality. JPEG XL is currently better at medium and high image qualities, including the range of image quality used in the internet and the cameras today." https://encode.su/threads/3397-JPEG-XL-vs-AVIF#:~:text=AVIF%20is%20currently%20better%20at,internet%20and%20the%20cameras%20today https://encode.su/threads/3397-JPEG-XL-vs-AVIF#:~:text=AVIF%....

shmerl 6y ago
How do they compare from patent encumbrance perspective? AVIF is supposed to be protected by AOM for everyone to use.
- Arkanosis 6y ago
  The JPEG XL reference implementation is under the Apache 2 license, which means that it comes with a royalty-free patent grant. So pretty much the same as AVIF (BSD 2 clauses + royalty-free patent grant).
  - shmerl 6y ago
    That sounds good, but AOM also provides a rather heavy weight protection against patent trolling and similar threats which is a benefit. It's similar to OIN in that sense.
  - viktorcode 6y ago
    Reference implementation is irrelevant to the patents which cover the use of underlying codec. The codec might get AOM protection, but then there's always some companies with patents outside of AOM. H.265 debacle with 2 patent holder groups is a good example of that.
    - shmerl 6y ago
      Those outside the AOM will face the combined power of AOM if they attack. In other cases it depends on who defends the codec. H.265 is an anti-example, because there patents were pooled for offensive purposes to begin with, while AOM pooled resources for defense. I.e. something like MPEG-LA exists to extort money, not to defend anyone. That's also why you got two separate pools there. Patent aggressors don't want to share, each of them wants to get all the loot for themselves.
- zorgmonkey 6y ago
  The creators of JPEG XL have all agreed to give royalty free patent licenses to any relevant patents they own, so I think it compares quite well.
- niftich 6y ago
  AVIF is a format that puts an AV1 bitstream into a HEIF container. You're thinking about what AOM said about AV1 [6], not AVIF; they should not (and in fact do not) make that claim for AVIF -- which builds on HEIF that isn't their work -- though you ought to judge the situation for yourself [7]. I am not a lawyer, and I realize there's a fine line between genuine concern and spreading FUD, but in the spring of 2019 I looked into the patent situation around the HEIF container itself [1] -- the container upon which AVIF builds -- and skimmed through the 5 US patents I found, which cover some techniques that can be used in the format. Most of them can probably be avoided for the purposes of an AVIF file, but patent US20160232939A1 [2] in my reading seems to be about in-container signalling to express relationships between a "static media item" and "one or more entities" that together "form a group", and "indicating, in the file, a grouping type for the group". The patent appears to be written in a way to allow this definition to encompass, say, a thumbnail and a bunch of frames thereafter, or, say a master image and a set of pictures derived from it, or alternate camera angles of the same thing. Some of these techniques sound like stuff we've seen before, but as is common in patents, the precise wording of claims is often key, and this is where patent lawyers come in. A thorough look of the AVIF specification [3] and the patents registered with the MPEG LA about this format [1] is likely wise before any widespread deployment that makes use of advanced features of the HEIF container; using it to hold exactly 1 'one-layer' still-image is probably fine. Additionally, in my reading [5], the HEIF reference software released by Nokia [4] includes a patent grant for non-commercial evaluation, testing and academic research only. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874321 [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160232939A1/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160232939A1/ [3] https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-avif/ https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-avif/ [4] https://github.com/nokiatech/heif/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/nokiatech/heif/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874368 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AV1&oldid=997650749#Patent_claims https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AV1&oldid=9976507... [7] https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/issues/2 https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/issues/2
  - shmerl 6y ago
    I had that question before too, still not sure why they picked HEIF for AVIF, instead of using some more obviously free container. They could easily avoid all the above.
ksec 6y ago
I just wanted to mention XL is currently not optimised for low bitrate. So there are lots of potential to improve. And I do think taking median Image size and bitrate on Internet was the wrong point of optimisation. Lots of image on the internet just aren't properly optimised. I think and I may be wrong, the format is now finalised. ( The original schedule was last July... so it was delayed abit ) People who are interested could start testing it.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 6y ago
  JPEG XL's great properties extend to about 3-5x lower bitrates than what are used in the Internet and to about 10x lower bitrates than what are used in cameras. Also some improvement is happening in that area.

shmerl 6y ago

How do they compare from patent encumbrance perspective? AVIF is supposed to be protected by AOM for everyone to use.

Arkanosis 6y ago
The JPEG XL reference implementation is under the Apache 2 license, which means that it comes with a royalty-free patent grant. So pretty much the same as AVIF (BSD 2 clauses + royalty-free patent grant).
- shmerl 6y ago
  That sounds good, but AOM also provides a rather heavy weight protection against patent trolling and similar threats which is a benefit. It's similar to OIN in that sense.
- viktorcode 6y ago
  Reference implementation is irrelevant to the patents which cover the use of underlying codec. The codec might get AOM protection, but then there's always some companies with patents outside of AOM. H.265 debacle with 2 patent holder groups is a good example of that.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    Those outside the AOM will face the combined power of AOM if they attack. In other cases it depends on who defends the codec. H.265 is an anti-example, because there patents were pooled for offensive purposes to begin with, while AOM pooled resources for defense. I.e. something like MPEG-LA exists to extort money, not to defend anyone. That's also why you got two separate pools there. Patent aggressors don't want to share, each of them wants to get all the loot for themselves.
zorgmonkey 6y ago
The creators of JPEG XL have all agreed to give royalty free patent licenses to any relevant patents they own, so I think it compares quite well.
niftich 6y ago
AVIF is a format that puts an AV1 bitstream into a HEIF container. You're thinking about what AOM said about AV1 [6], not AVIF; they should not (and in fact do not) make that claim for AVIF -- which builds on HEIF that isn't their work -- though you ought to judge the situation for yourself [7]. I am not a lawyer, and I realize there's a fine line between genuine concern and spreading FUD, but in the spring of 2019 I looked into the patent situation around the HEIF container itself [1] -- the container upon which AVIF builds -- and skimmed through the 5 US patents I found, which cover some techniques that can be used in the format. Most of them can probably be avoided for the purposes of an AVIF file, but patent US20160232939A1 [2] in my reading seems to be about in-container signalling to express relationships between a "static media item" and "one or more entities" that together "form a group", and "indicating, in the file, a grouping type for the group". The patent appears to be written in a way to allow this definition to encompass, say, a thumbnail and a bunch of frames thereafter, or, say a master image and a set of pictures derived from it, or alternate camera angles of the same thing. Some of these techniques sound like stuff we've seen before, but as is common in patents, the precise wording of claims is often key, and this is where patent lawyers come in. A thorough look of the AVIF specification [3] and the patents registered with the MPEG LA about this format [1] is likely wise before any widespread deployment that makes use of advanced features of the HEIF container; using it to hold exactly 1 'one-layer' still-image is probably fine. Additionally, in my reading [5], the HEIF reference software released by Nokia [4] includes a patent grant for non-commercial evaluation, testing and academic research only. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874321 [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160232939A1/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160232939A1/ [3] https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-avif/ https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-avif/ [4] https://github.com/nokiatech/heif/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/nokiatech/heif/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19874368 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AV1&oldid=997650749#Patent_claims https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AV1&oldid=9976507... [7] https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/issues/2 https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/issues/2
- shmerl 6y ago
  I had that question before too, still not sure why they picked HEIF for AVIF, instead of using some more obviously free container. They could easily avoid all the above.

ksec 6y ago

I just wanted to mention XL is currently not optimised for low bitrate. So there are lots of potential to improve. And I do think taking median Image size and bitrate on Internet was the wrong point of optimisation. Lots of image on the internet just aren't properly optimised. I think and I may be wrong, the format is now finalised. ( The original schedule was last July... so it was delayed abit ) People who are interested could start testing it.

JyrkiAlakuijala 6y ago
JPEG XL's great properties extend to about 3-5x lower bitrates than what are used in the Internet and to about 10x lower bitrates than what are used in cameras. Also some improvement is happening in that area.