5 ms·

AVIF I think is already well on the way. HEIC is DOA.

by shmerl 4y ago

jeroenhd 4y ago
AVIF is supported on pretty much every modern browser now. Even Safari is adding support for it with the upcoming Safari release. At this point AVIF vs JPEG XL is a more interesting discussion than anything vs HEIC.
- berkut 4y ago
  Is it enabled by default in Firefox yet? I've just tried: https://libre-software.net/image/avif-test/ https://libre-software.net/image/avif-test/ on two Linux machines with Firefox 105, and both showed the alt image text, so I guess maybe not, although it's showing up as enabled in about:config. Edit: https://avif.io/ https://avif.io/ seems to work and display converted .jpg files, so maybe the first URL is old and doesn't work.
  - shmerl 4y ago
    Firefox supports AVIF out of the box for a while already.
    - josephg 4y ago
      Only still images apparently. Not supported in Safari yet (though its coming) and Edge has no support: https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif HEIF doesn't work in any web browser: https://caniuse.com/heif https://caniuse.com/heif
      - shmerl 4y ago
        What's the point of animated AVIF vs for example AV1 video file?
        extra88 4y ago
        My guess is as a drop-in replacement for GIF; use the <img> element instead of the more complicated <video> element, an inherent lack of audio, no need to specify looping or lack of video controls, etc. I think Safari already supports using at least one actual video format as the `src` in an <img> element but it's weird to do so.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    The first URL doesn't even show the fallback JPEG for me on Firefox for Android so there's probably something else interfering with the use of that website. My browser seems to render AVIF just fine on Ubuntu and Manjaro, with Nvidia and Intel GPU backends. If it works with hardware acceleration on top of Nvidia's shitty drivers, I assume it'll work everywhere. I've heard some old bug reports about colour management and AVIF not working together well in Firefox, that was the reason support had been baked in for a whole but the format was still locked behind a flag. I suppose they fixed that now that they enable the format by default.
    - Zardoz84 4y ago
      The avif image URLs of these page are broken. at least, give me a nice 404 page
- pmarreck 4y ago
  I vote for JPEG XL. The fact that you can completely eliminate things like imagemagick or 3rd party scaling workflows (simply retain the max-size original and truncate the stream proportional to the pixel area requested!) is huge IMHO.
- bscphil 4y ago
  Accurate. My experience (as someone who has encoded a lot of both AVIF and JPEG XL images) is that JPEG XL tends to have superior detail preservation at medium to high bitrates, as well as preserving grain significantly better at all bitrates. It's also slightly less prone to banding than AVIF, but more prone to noticeable artifacting on sharp edges, which only goes away at higher bitrates. It's pretty clear at this point that JPEG XL is a superior codec for e.g. photography. I think the question is going to be whether the browsers decide that it's worth supporting on the web, where lower quality images are the norm. Some comparison images: https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/#eaglefairy&avif=l&jxl=l https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/#eaglef...
  - ryukoposting 4y ago
    As a hobby photographer, this is a deeply interesting topic. I keep all my scans (yes, film still exists) as TIF files, but my clients don't know what to do with a TIF (and even fewer know how to tell a printer that the image uses a particular colorspace) so I usually send them the TIFs, plus some high-quality JPEGs. Why not HEIC/AVIF/etc? Because people know what a JPEG is.
    - shmerl 4y ago
      Why TIF vs for example PNG? Are there any benefits?
      - ace2358 4y ago
        I’m under the impression that TIFF is lossless (like FLAC) while png is lossy (like ogg).
        bscphil 4y ago
        PNG is not lossy. However, it doesn't support metadata anywhere nearly as well as TIFF, so I still use that for lossless photography storage.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > Even Safari is adding support for it with the upcoming Safari release. Safari for iOS 16.0 supports it now for still images. Safari for 16.1 apparently adds support for animated image sequences. AVIF support comes to macOS with macOS Ventura. https://twitter.com/jensimmons/status/1547693585922789381 https://twitter.com/jensimmons/status/1547693585922789381
- yRetsyM 4y ago
  What is the patent situation for JPEG XL vs AVIF?
  - shmerl 4y ago
    Both officially are free, but AVIF possibly has stronger defensive backing given it's defended from patent aggressors by AOM.

AVIF I think is already well on the way. HEIC is DOA.

by shmerl 4y ago

AVIF I think is already well on the way. HEIC is DOA.

AVIF is supported on pretty much every modern browser now. Even Safari is adding support for it with the upcoming Safari release. At this point AVIF vs JPEG XL is a more interesting discussion than anything vs HEIC.

berkut 4y ago
Is it enabled by default in Firefox yet? I've just tried: https://libre-software.net/image/avif-test/ https://libre-software.net/image/avif-test/ on two Linux machines with Firefox 105, and both showed the alt image text, so I guess maybe not, although it's showing up as enabled in about:config. Edit: https://avif.io/ https://avif.io/ seems to work and display converted .jpg files, so maybe the first URL is old and doesn't work.
- shmerl 4y ago
  Firefox supports AVIF out of the box for a while already.
  - josephg 4y ago
    Only still images apparently. Not supported in Safari yet (though its coming) and Edge has no support: https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif HEIF doesn't work in any web browser: https://caniuse.com/heif https://caniuse.com/heif
    - shmerl 4y ago
      What's the point of animated AVIF vs for example AV1 video file?
      - extra88 4y ago
        My guess is as a drop-in replacement for GIF; use the <img> element instead of the more complicated <video> element, an inherent lack of audio, no need to specify looping or lack of video controls, etc. I think Safari already supports using at least one actual video format as the `src` in an <img> element but it's weird to do so.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  The first URL doesn't even show the fallback JPEG for me on Firefox for Android so there's probably something else interfering with the use of that website. My browser seems to render AVIF just fine on Ubuntu and Manjaro, with Nvidia and Intel GPU backends. If it works with hardware acceleration on top of Nvidia's shitty drivers, I assume it'll work everywhere. I've heard some old bug reports about colour management and AVIF not working together well in Firefox, that was the reason support had been baked in for a whole but the format was still locked behind a flag. I suppose they fixed that now that they enable the format by default.
  - Zardoz84 4y ago
    The avif image URLs of these page are broken. at least, give me a nice 404 page
pmarreck 4y ago
I vote for JPEG XL. The fact that you can completely eliminate things like imagemagick or 3rd party scaling workflows (simply retain the max-size original and truncate the stream proportional to the pixel area requested!) is huge IMHO.
bscphil 4y ago
Accurate. My experience (as someone who has encoded a lot of both AVIF and JPEG XL images) is that JPEG XL tends to have superior detail preservation at medium to high bitrates, as well as preserving grain significantly better at all bitrates. It's also slightly less prone to banding than AVIF, but more prone to noticeable artifacting on sharp edges, which only goes away at higher bitrates. It's pretty clear at this point that JPEG XL is a superior codec for e.g. photography. I think the question is going to be whether the browsers decide that it's worth supporting on the web, where lower quality images are the norm. Some comparison images: https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/#eaglefairy&avif=l&jxl=l https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/#eaglef...
- ryukoposting 4y ago
  As a hobby photographer, this is a deeply interesting topic. I keep all my scans (yes, film still exists) as TIF files, but my clients don't know what to do with a TIF (and even fewer know how to tell a printer that the image uses a particular colorspace) so I usually send them the TIFs, plus some high-quality JPEGs. Why not HEIC/AVIF/etc? Because people know what a JPEG is.
  - shmerl 4y ago
    Why TIF vs for example PNG? Are there any benefits?
    - ace2358 4y ago
      I’m under the impression that TIFF is lossless (like FLAC) while png is lossy (like ogg).
      - bscphil 4y ago
        PNG is not lossy. However, it doesn't support metadata anywhere nearly as well as TIFF, so I still use that for lossless photography storage.
CharlesW 4y ago
> Even Safari is adding support for it with the upcoming Safari release. Safari for iOS 16.0 supports it now for still images. Safari for 16.1 apparently adds support for animated image sequences. AVIF support comes to macOS with macOS Ventura. https://twitter.com/jensimmons/status/1547693585922789381 https://twitter.com/jensimmons/status/1547693585922789381
yRetsyM 4y ago
What is the patent situation for JPEG XL vs AVIF?
- shmerl 4y ago
  Both officially are free, but AVIF possibly has stronger defensive backing given it's defended from patent aggressors by AOM.