6 ms·
AVIF has landed (2020)
- bsenftner 5y agoWhere can one get a linkable library for AVIF? got it: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif
- orestis 5y agoWhat would the best format to convert user-submitted images? We need to update our image pipeline soon, so I'm looking into various options. It looks like you still have to keep jpg/png around for a few years at least. Even if you drop IE11, there's a few versions of Safari out there that don't support even WebP. So the pipeline would be: * png -> resize -> png/lossless webp * jpg/other -> resize -> jpg/webp Where "other" is whatever format iPhone cameras use. Is there anything I'm missing if I were to do this today?
- Nadya 5y agoSee also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706284 Personally I'm trying to push for JXL (for high fidelity) and AVIF (for when lower fidelity is acceptable) adoption at work. With absolutely no success yet but as it matures I'm sure things will turn around.
- aidenn0 5y agoFor anyone else is the brightness curve different with AVIF? Perhaps an sRGB vs linear issue? I'm on firefox 96.
- theandrewbailey 5y agoFirefox held off on AVIF for a few releases to get their image color spaces right. I'm usually blind when it comes to things like this (is this random image resized gamma correct? hell if I know), but even I could tell that AVIFs didn't look right before they fixed it. Those fixes were in well before FF 96, so there might be something else at play.
- aidenn0 5y agoTried on a different machine with FF 97 and the problem was gone.
- kingcharles 5y agoSo much stuff fucks with the color profile of the images, the browser, the OS, the screen. I wouldn't be surprised if only some of the test images have a color profile set correctly.
- 88j88 5y agoIn the example given, the image looks far worse with AVIF. Given that this is an F1 car driving with motion blur- the AVIF image looks slow, because now the blur is in every direction.. the wheels appear to have grey liquid dripping from them, and areas of the car that weren't blurred due to being in focal plane, are now mushed and blurred as well!
- bscphil 5y agoThat's why the only acceptable way to compare codecs is to have two images of exactly the same size. At significantly different sizes, the compression artifacts will be different enough that the comparison becomes subjective, at best. Here's a comparison that has AVIF, JPEG-XL, mozjpeg, and others: https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/ https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/
- naoqj 5y agoIf you need images of the same exact size for them to look the same then there is no point to having new codecs.
- vlovich123 5y agoOP is saying you need them to be the same to make the image quality difference more obvious. If you shrunk the other codecs to the size the AVIF version is at, you’d see much worse visual artifacts. If you increased AVIF to be the same size as the others, you’d get better relative image quality. The article is trying to demonstrate how much more compression is achieved by trying to keep relative image quality the same. That’s fine normally but when you have a broad population looking at it then it’s going to be a lot of nitpicking which isn’t helpful when you’re trying to communicate about the codec quality (and no benchmark is perfect but it’s pretty clear that AVIF is roughly 20% or better than H265 if I recall correctly - good luck being able to measure a 20% relative difference in image quality by hand).
- bscphil 5y ago
- krnlpnc 5y agoWhy can’t these kinds of improvements be made to jpg itself? Media format sprawl is already exhausting.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bawolff 5y agoBecause its a fixed format from 1992 that needs to maintain backwards compatibility.
- nextaccountic 5y agomozjpeg greatly improved the state of art jpeg encodig, while maintaining full backwards compatibility https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg but there's a limit on what can be done with the primitives that jpeg offers. for example, jpeg is stuck with the older huffman coding for the entropy encoding part, instead of the better arithmetic coding or asymetric numeral systems
- modeless 5y agoThere are plenty of efforts to improve JPEG compression while retaining compatibility with existing decoders. But there's only so much you can do without breaking decoder compatibility, and if you do that then that's a new format whether you call it JPEG or not. It would be super confusing to have .jpg files that wouldn't work in existing software. JPEG XL is a new format with a new file extension jxl, but it does have backwards compatibility features that look pretty nice. Maybe that's what you want.
- 8K832d7tNmiQ 5y agoconsider adding (2020) to the title as this is an old news and current effort are now focused into better software encoder nowadays.
- ksec 5y agoWould love to see an update on this with JPEG XL. I am still not convinced AVIF is the solution. Although libaom made quite a bit of intra-frame / avif specific improvement in the past 2 years so may be worth taking another look.
- bscphil 5y agoThe main update is that JPEG XL is still not supported out of the box by any web browser, so it's not something you can use just yet. But if you're just looking for a comparison, there's one here: https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/ https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/
- markdog12 5y agoFor anyone wanted to try it out, Firefox and Chromium-based browsers have flags to enable it. Firefox: about:config, image.jxl.enabled Chromium: about:flags, Enable JXL image format
- lizardactivist 5y agoI understand that AV1 and AVIF are license-free and supposed to be open and available to anyone anywhere, but are there really no catches in the license agreement?
- hannob 5y agoHere's the big catch: MPEG-LA can't make any money with it.
- sandreas 5y agoAfter my experiments, I came to the conclusion, that for raster images, this is a good combination of srcsets and fallbacks to provide best image quality: <!-- wrapper element --> <picture> <!-- avif srcset: 1x, 2x, 3x as auto select higher quality images for higher screen resolutions --> <source srcset="/img/articles/iphone-3566282_235.avif 1x, /img/articles/iphone-3566282_235@2x.avif 2x, /img/articles/iphone-3566282_235@3x.avif 3x" type="image/avif"> <!-- webp srcset --> <source srcset="/img/articles/iphone-3566282_235.webp 1x, /img/articles/iphone-3566282_235@2x.webp 2x, /img/articles/iphone-3566282_235@3x.webp 3x" type="image/webp"> <!-- jpeg also as srcset to provide screen resolution based images --> <source srcset="/img/articles/iphone-3566282_235.jpg 1x, /img/articles/iphone-3566282_235@2x.jpg 2x, /img/articles/iphone-3566282_235@3x.jpg 3x" type="image/jpeg"> <!-- fallback image with loading=lazy, to load images only when visible --> <img src="/img/articles/iphone-3566282_235.jpg" alt="Access and recover files from an iPhone on Linux" title="Access and recover files from an iPhone on Linux" loading="lazy" class="size-235 raster ext-jpg" width="235" height="129"> </picture> Using this on https://pilabor.com/ https://pilabor.com/
- awongh 5y agoAny suggested resources for current best practices for srcset specifically and HTML images in general? I mean for real world use, not just the latest chrome version. I see some conflicting advice in this thread and from what little I’ve looked into it, there isn’t a good consensus on the subject yet?
- mkl 5y agoI'm seeing some weird behaviour with that on both Chrome 98 and Firefox 97. Chrome seems to be displaying the JPEG, and when I right-click and "Open image in new tab", I get the raw bytes of the AVIF file, not any version of the image. In Firefox, it seems to be displaying the JPEG too, and when I right-click and "Open image in new tab", I get the AVIF file (as an image). Also in Firefox, probably a CSS thing, when the window is made smaller vertically (e.g. by the developer tools at the bottom), the image is scaled down vertically but not horizontally. I'm looking at the image at the top of https://pilabor.com/blog/2021/05/remote-desktop-with-xrdp-and-kubuntu/ https://pilabor.com/blog/2021/05/remote-desktop-with-xrdp-an...
- robin_reala 5y agoWe recently updated IKEA.com to serve AVIFs to browsers that support them where they are smaller for the same level of perceptual quality. Even without Safari support we saw an overall drop in image bandwidth of 21.4% which, considering the amount of traffic we get, is a major chunk of cash saved.
- prox 5y agoDo you know if Safari will ever support one of the newer formats?
- robin_reala 5y agoWebKit already supports AVIF directly, but Safari disables that and relies on macOS’s image decoders, which currently don’t.[1] I imagine it’ll arrive at some point. [1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207750#c25 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207750#c25
- ho_schi 5y agoRunning Epiphany (WebKit2) on Linux. But it seem like not turned ON up until now? https://libre-software.net/avif-test/ https://libre-software.net/avif-test/
- unicornporn 5y agoHopefully. Safari is the new IE, that's for sure.
- robin_reala 5y agoYou can add Edge to that pile too, because even though Chromium supports AVIF Microsoft intentionally disable it.
- postalrat 5y agoThat's insignificant compared to the list of things safari does differently. And apple doesn't give ios uses any choice. You are stuck dealing with those differences.
- poser-boy 5y agoProbably isn't the best idea to compare AVIF to JPEG. JPEG is better suited to high fidelity images, while AVIF is ideal for making the image look good as small as it can. I suggest looking into JPEG XL for things like photography, scans, etc.
- tus666 5y agoCloser to the original than WebP too. Thats pretty damn good. I wonder if machine learning/deep-fake technology has created even better compression algorithms.
- jokoon 5y agoWhat matters are embedded encoders, since I guess that's what smartphone camera outputs. A new format is good as long as firmwares can encode it at good speed.
- sandstrom 5y agoIn case anyone is curious, this is a pretty good comparison between AVIF and JPEG XL: https://avif.io/blog/comparisons/avif-vs-jpegxl/#speed https://avif.io/blog/comparisons/avif-vs-jpegxl/#speed And here is the current state for Safari: https://jpegxl.io/tutorials/safari/ https://jpegxl.io/tutorials/safari/
- Alan_Dillman 5y agoI wish math would land, so people would say "a quarter to a third the size", which is what I guess they really mean.
- chrismorgan 5y ago(2020), and the title is editorialised in a way that doesn’t really make sense (though one can figure out the intended meaning).