4 ms·
The thing about AVIF is that it's genuinely heavier processor-wise (software decoding) or requires more hardware circuitry than JXL (hardware decoding). It's be
by zinekeller 4y ago
The thing about AVIF is that it's genuinely heavier processor-wise (software decoding) or requires more hardware circuitry than JXL (hardware decoding). It's better than nothing and since AV1 was finalised a few years ago it's definitely helpful (JXL has been just finalised), but it's worse than WebP in lossless encoding (so stick to WebP for that) and may affect battery life in devices with a WebM hardware decoder but don't have any AV1 circuitry.
- pornel 4y agoAFAIK nobody decodes still images using video hardware acceleration. HW supports only one stream at a time and has a setup latency. Browsers decode images in parallel and want them ASAP. AVIF does very well in almost-lossless encoding of the kinds of images you'd use lossless formats for. You can beat any lossless format with imperceptibly small amount of loss. True lossless is needed for authoring, but not for typical Web distribution. People think lossy can't be used for icon-like images, because they associate lossy with JPEG-like distortions, but it's possible to do lossy compression using other methods that preserve razor-sharp edges.
- NavinF 4y ago> lossy compression using other methods that preserve razor-sharp edges Examples? I've never seen lossy compressed icons that didn't look like crap, but what you describe should be possible in theory.
- pornel 4y agoAVIF is the example. It supports palette-based blocks in addition to classic DCT with sophisticated deringing. There's also https://pngquant.org https://pngquant.org (palette may seem banal, but it is a type of vector quantization) and https://github.com/richgel999/rdopng https://github.com/richgel999/rdopng
- tambourine_man 4y agordopng looks awesome, I wasn’t aware of it, thanks.