5 ms·

Looks surprisingly good for vector images, but I'm not sure if the size comparison is fair: you'd gzip this content and it will probably work well with text/SVG

by krick 6y ago

Looks surprisingly good for vector images, but I'm not sure if the size comparison is fair: you'd gzip this content and it will probably work well with text/SVG, and probably won't work at all with AVIF. Not to mention in the first case it's truly lossless, and in the second case it's... well, not bad. For F1 image, if you compare 20KB JPEG vs 18KB AVIF, there's no doubt AVIF is better. But if this picture is the content of page, not some useless decorations, I'd rather be served with 70KB JPEG in this example, it isn't really a close competition. So I wonder if 40-50-60 KB AVIF would look as good or better than 70 KB JPEG. Then it would be impressive. Otherwise, it isn't really a drop-in replacement and I wonder what the correct use-case strategy should be.

chrismorgan 6y ago
Jake’s point was to compare the minimum acceptable qualities, showing that when you take things to extremes, AVIF is way better than the alternatives in surprisingly many fields. But the trouble is that JPEG starts destroying parts of the F1 image a good deal earlier, and so you have to have parts of the image at a much higher quality than would seem necessary, lest other parts of the image be ruined. Similar happens with MP3 compression artefacts and Opus/MP3 comparisons. It would have been good if the article also included an AVIF image increased in quality to match the JPEG’s DDSIM score, or at least indicated what that quality level was. I’d expect that 30KB would be sufficient, quite possibly even 25KB.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  The reference image on the sight was 18kb AVIF vs 79kb JPEG at (as far as I could tell on my phone) identical perceptual quality.
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    The JPEG is markedly higher quality in many details, as Jake discusses: > In fact, when I showed this article to Kornel Lesiński (who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to image compression), he was unhappy with my F1 comparison above, because the DDSIM score of the JPEG is much lower than the others, meaning it's closer in quality to the original image, and… he's right. > I struggled to compress the F1 image as JPEG. If I went any lower than 74 kB, the banding on the road became really obvious to me, and some of the grey parts of the road appeared slightly purple in a noticeable way, […] > The fine detail of the road is lost in all of the compressed versions, which I'm ok with. However, you can see the difference in detail Kornel was talking about. Look at the red bodywork in the original, there are three distinct parts – the mirror, the wing connecting the bargeboard, and the top of the sidepod. In the AVIF, the smoothing removes the division between these parts, but they're still mostly there in the JPEG, especially the 74 kB version.
jaffathecake 6y ago
The SVG sizes I talk about include minification and brotli.

by krick 6y ago

chrismorgan 6y ago

Jake’s point was to compare the minimum acceptable qualities, showing that when you take things to extremes, AVIF is way better than the alternatives in surprisingly many fields. But the trouble is that JPEG starts destroying parts of the F1 image a good deal earlier, and so you have to have parts of the image at a much higher quality than would seem necessary, lest other parts of the image be ruined. Similar happens with MP3 compression artefacts and Opus/MP3 comparisons. It would have been good if the article also included an AVIF image increased in quality to match the JPEG’s DDSIM score, or at least indicated what that quality level was. I’d expect that 30KB would be sufficient, quite possibly even 25KB.

vlovich123 6y ago
The reference image on the sight was 18kb AVIF vs 79kb JPEG at (as far as I could tell on my phone) identical perceptual quality.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  The JPEG is markedly higher quality in many details, as Jake discusses: > In fact, when I showed this article to Kornel Lesiński (who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to image compression), he was unhappy with my F1 comparison above, because the DDSIM score of the JPEG is much lower than the others, meaning it's closer in quality to the original image, and… he's right. > I struggled to compress the F1 image as JPEG. If I went any lower than 74 kB, the banding on the road became really obvious to me, and some of the grey parts of the road appeared slightly purple in a noticeable way, […] > The fine detail of the road is lost in all of the compressed versions, which I'm ok with. However, you can see the difference in detail Kornel was talking about. Look at the red bodywork in the original, there are three distinct parts – the mirror, the wing connecting the bargeboard, and the top of the sidepod. In the AVIF, the smoothing removes the division between these parts, but they're still mostly there in the JPEG, especially the 74 kB version.

jaffathecake 6y ago

The SVG sizes I talk about include minification and brotli.