3 ms·

I was honestly skeptical of another format beyond AVIF for images. I thought the next generation coded would be based on neural net encoding/decoding for lossy

I was honestly skeptical of another format beyond AVIF for images. I thought the next generation coded would be based on neural net encoding/decoding for lossy images (as we should be able to get "easy" 2x wins). However, I think progressive loading in JPEG XL is an amazing feature, and a significant update, and is perhaps more important that raw compression ability. My understanding is also that you can also use the progressive nature to have 1 "high res" version, and potentially render different sizes for different connections, and do some interesting things. For example, I believe you could (in principal) do something like stop loading after 1s so long as a minimum size level was achieved) - to make things fast on all devices, but only the quality would vary. So if you are on a 4k monitor and gigabit download? You can get massive images. On a 3g phone? Get the basics. It's a really great feature, and does seem like it would likely have the most real world impact on actual website perceived performance.

ByTheBook 5y ago
Another strong feature is the great upgrade path from existing jpeg files, which can be losslessly recompressed into jpeg xl with an additional ~20% compression. At this point I don't really see a reason for AVIF, hardware accelerated decoding could be a benefit, but AFAIK there's no device supporting it.
floatboth 5y ago
AVIF should be completely cancelled in favor of JXL. A native designed-for-images codec is so much better than "use video codec for one frame" in countless ways. Indeed progressive being probably the biggest one. Oh, and Apple might be less hostile to it, because it's not based on an "anti-MPEG" video codec.
- jonsneyers 5y ago
  I think AVIF is a great replacement for GIF (the acronyms even rhyme and all!). For short-video-without-audio, it's as good as it gets. For still images though, I don't really see any major advantage of AVIF over JXL except AVIF being a bit older and already enabled by default in Chrome. I do see several advantages of JXL over AVIF though. So the way I see it, the future is: AVIF instead of GIF (and APNG and animated WebP) JPEG XL instead of JPEG (and PNG and still WebP) Disclaimer: I am probably biased since I am a jxl dev. Please do your own independent evaluation (and feel free to share your opinions/conclusions with me).
  - floatboth 5y ago
    <video autoplay> instead of GIF though.

ByTheBook 5y ago

Another strong feature is the great upgrade path from existing jpeg files, which can be losslessly recompressed into jpeg xl with an additional ~20% compression. At this point I don't really see a reason for AVIF, hardware accelerated decoding could be a benefit, but AFAIK there's no device supporting it.

floatboth 5y ago

AVIF should be completely cancelled in favor of JXL. A native designed-for-images codec is so much better than "use video codec for one frame" in countless ways. Indeed progressive being probably the biggest one. Oh, and Apple might be less hostile to it, because it's not based on an "anti-MPEG" video codec.

jonsneyers 5y ago
I think AVIF is a great replacement for GIF (the acronyms even rhyme and all!). For short-video-without-audio, it's as good as it gets. For still images though, I don't really see any major advantage of AVIF over JXL except AVIF being a bit older and already enabled by default in Chrome. I do see several advantages of JXL over AVIF though. So the way I see it, the future is: AVIF instead of GIF (and APNG and animated WebP) JPEG XL instead of JPEG (and PNG and still WebP) Disclaimer: I am probably biased since I am a jxl dev. Please do your own independent evaluation (and feel free to share your opinions/conclusions with me).
- floatboth 5y ago
  <video autoplay> instead of GIF though.