5 ms·

I guess that’s that then. AVIF wins the format war for the next JPEG.

by gjsman-1000 4y ago

LeoPanthera 4y ago
AVIF? The war was lost when Apple set the default iPhone photo format to HEIF. You can't compete with that.
- Ennea 4y ago
  AVIF lives inside an HEIF container, too.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    To add a bit more detail, both AVIF and HEIF use the same file/container format: ISO Base Media File Format¹ — a.k.a. "ISOBMFF", ISO/IEC 14496-12. ISOBMFF is also used for MPEG-4, AV1, etc. If nothing else, the world appears to have settled on a flexible, extensible container format that can support any future media formats we can come up with. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format
- theandrewbailey 4y ago
  HEIF can't compete while being bogged down by patent licensing costs.
- masklinn 4y ago
  Apple is on the AOM board, and introduced HEIF before AVIF even existed (HEIF shipped in 2017 in iOS 11 and macOS 10.13, the first AVIF images were published late 2018, and the format was finalized early 2019). Apple has also shipped AVIF support in iOS 16 and Ventura, and AVIF-enabled Safari in the same. HEIF support was never enabled in Safari. Still isn't. There is no war. HEIF support was mostly a way to optimise storage on iPhones.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Your HEIF are insignificant compared to JPEG.
- mort96 4y ago
  Not even Safari on iPhone supports HEIF. Compare HEIF support with AVIF support: https://caniuse.com/?search=heif https://caniuse.com/?search=heif, https://caniuse.com/?search=avif https://caniuse.com/?search=avif. I don't see this changing either, most browser vendors are going to decide that AVIF is good enough and not pay to license the HEIF patents from the MPEG group.
gsich 4y ago
Only JPEG can surpass JPEG.
ajross 4y ago
Pretty sure that JPEG won the format war for the next JPEG, decades ago. No one wants this. The benefits just don't outweigh the headaches in compatibility and content duplication. JPEG is good enough, and always has been. We'll all be happier by celebrating such a impactful technology than grousing and constantly trying to fix what ain't broken.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Pretty sure that JPEG won the format war for the next JPEG, decades ago. JPEG for lossy image formats, PNG for lossless.
  - m-p-3 4y ago
    and SVG for vector-vased.
    - masklinn 4y ago
      Yeah nah. The scripting support (both direct and via styling) makes shipping SVG a complete hell. Aggressive (restrictive) CSP policies actually degrade and break SVG styling because of that. And it's absolutely necessary if you allow direct SVG linking / opening. If anything, SVG is the one image format most in need of replacement.
JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
No loss there, just slowdown and additional complexity for the web devs to deal with. Jpeg xl covers several important domains that are not served by AVIF. Jpeg xl will anchor in these domains and where AVIF cannot provide sufficient quality or speed. Eventually it cannot be ignored any more and will be made available in browsers, too. Once jpeg xl is made available there is no reason to use jpeg1, WebP or AVIF anymore. Then we can simplify again.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > Jpeg xl covers several important domains that are not served by AVIF. I'm not finding any. Mind listing them? > Once jpeg xl is made available there is no reason to use jpeg1, WebP or AVIF anymore. Then we can simplify again. Unfortunately, JPEG XL wasn't "better enough" to have a unique selling proposition. And AVIF is the format that actually simplifies things, because it uses the same compressed media format (AV1) as the next-gen video distribution format.
  - mort96 4y ago
    >> Jpeg xl covers several important domains that are not served by AVIF. > I'm not finding any. Mind listing them? I don't know much about JXL vs AV1 from a technical perspective, both seem significantly better than JPEG. But JXL has the practical advantage that it can losslessly recompress JPEG images for a size improvement without an image quality improvement. When converting JPEG to AV1, you're stuck decompressing the JPEG into raw pixel data, with JPEG artefacts and all, and then compress that pixel data with AV1, so you get the artefacts from JPEG and the artefacts from AV1. Decompressing the resulting AV1 image will result in different and almost certainly worse quality pixel data. So the ability to do a risk-free lossless conversion from JPEG to a better format and get a size improvement is a pretty darn big domain that's not served by AV1.
    - CharlesW 4y ago
PaulHoule 4y ago
It’s a tough battle. For about 10 years I have been thinking about new file image file formats, it wasn’t until last year that I started really using them. For the web there is the cost of data transfer and the cost of data storage. You can save on data transfer by adding more files in more formats but you pay more in storage cost. To fully realize the economy of better file formats you need to retire JPEG and not add more files. I finally got convinced that WEBP was supported well enough that it was worth using 𝐚𝐧𝐝 that the image quality was really good with small files. I learned that the disadvantages of new file formats that claim to compress better are real but the better compression isn’t always real. I see people write a blog post where they compress three sample images but a real evaluation project is a lot more than that. So the world may well be better off with a second-best file format that people really use than being stuck with JPEG because people are struggling to make up their mind about what new format to use, support, etc.
JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
I believe current AVIF decoders and encoders are not competitive against JPEG1 codecs from the libjxl project. Check out the 'jpegli' effort. My guesswork is that jpegli is likely 5-10 % better for photography use case than AVIF. Jpegli also allows for similar HDR dynamics, 10-12 bits, like AVIF.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
  Jpegli can be further compressed by lossless jpeg1 support in jpeg xl, and some more by using full lossy jpeg xl.
mort96 4y ago
I don't see why you're getting downvoted. With Chrome removing JXL and all the browser vendors' expressed intentions to get behind AVIF, it certainly seems like AVIF is the clear winner in this round of the image format wars.
sb057 4y ago
An image file format with a maximum resolution of 8193x4320 (without hacking pieces together) can never win a format war, let alone one in 2022 for pete's sake.

I guess that’s that then. AVIF wins the format war for the next JPEG.

LeoPanthera 4y ago

AVIF? The war was lost when Apple set the default iPhone photo format to HEIF. You can't compete with that.

Ennea 4y ago
AVIF lives inside an HEIF container, too.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  To add a bit more detail, both AVIF and HEIF use the same file/container format: ISO Base Media File Format¹ — a.k.a. "ISOBMFF", ISO/IEC 14496-12. ISOBMFF is also used for MPEG-4, AV1, etc. If nothing else, the world appears to have settled on a flexible, extensible container format that can support any future media formats we can come up with. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format
theandrewbailey 4y ago
HEIF can't compete while being bogged down by patent licensing costs.
masklinn 4y ago
Apple is on the AOM board, and introduced HEIF before AVIF even existed (HEIF shipped in 2017 in iOS 11 and macOS 10.13, the first AVIF images were published late 2018, and the format was finalized early 2019). Apple has also shipped AVIF support in iOS 16 and Ventura, and AVIF-enabled Safari in the same. HEIF support was never enabled in Safari. Still isn't. There is no war. HEIF support was mostly a way to optimise storage on iPhones.
postalrat 4y ago
Your HEIF are insignificant compared to JPEG.
mort96 4y ago
Not even Safari on iPhone supports HEIF. Compare HEIF support with AVIF support: https://caniuse.com/?search=heif https://caniuse.com/?search=heif, https://caniuse.com/?search=avif https://caniuse.com/?search=avif. I don't see this changing either, most browser vendors are going to decide that AVIF is good enough and not pay to license the HEIF patents from the MPEG group.

gsich 4y ago

Only JPEG can surpass JPEG.

ajross 4y ago

Pretty sure that JPEG won the format war for the next JPEG, decades ago. No one wants this. The benefits just don't outweigh the headaches in compatibility and content duplication. JPEG is good enough, and always has been. We'll all be happier by celebrating such a impactful technology than grousing and constantly trying to fix what ain't broken.

simplotek 4y ago
> Pretty sure that JPEG won the format war for the next JPEG, decades ago. JPEG for lossy image formats, PNG for lossless.
- m-p-3 4y ago
  and SVG for vector-vased.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    Yeah nah. The scripting support (both direct and via styling) makes shipping SVG a complete hell. Aggressive (restrictive) CSP policies actually degrade and break SVG styling because of that. And it's absolutely necessary if you allow direct SVG linking / opening. If anything, SVG is the one image format most in need of replacement.

JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago

No loss there, just slowdown and additional complexity for the web devs to deal with. Jpeg xl covers several important domains that are not served by AVIF. Jpeg xl will anchor in these domains and where AVIF cannot provide sufficient quality or speed. Eventually it cannot be ignored any more and will be made available in browsers, too. Once jpeg xl is made available there is no reason to use jpeg1, WebP or AVIF anymore. Then we can simplify again.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CharlesW 4y ago
> Jpeg xl covers several important domains that are not served by AVIF. I'm not finding any. Mind listing them? > Once jpeg xl is made available there is no reason to use jpeg1, WebP or AVIF anymore. Then we can simplify again. Unfortunately, JPEG XL wasn't "better enough" to have a unique selling proposition. And AVIF is the format that actually simplifies things, because it uses the same compressed media format (AV1) as the next-gen video distribution format.
- mort96 4y ago
  >> Jpeg xl covers several important domains that are not served by AVIF. > I'm not finding any. Mind listing them? I don't know much about JXL vs AV1 from a technical perspective, both seem significantly better than JPEG. But JXL has the practical advantage that it can losslessly recompress JPEG images for a size improvement without an image quality improvement. When converting JPEG to AV1, you're stuck decompressing the JPEG into raw pixel data, with JPEG artefacts and all, and then compress that pixel data with AV1, so you get the artefacts from JPEG and the artefacts from AV1. Decompressing the resulting AV1 image will result in different and almost certainly worse quality pixel data. So the ability to do a risk-free lossless conversion from JPEG to a better format and get a size improvement is a pretty darn big domain that's not served by AV1.
  - CharlesW 4y ago

PaulHoule 4y ago

It’s a tough battle. For about 10 years I have been thinking about new file image file formats, it wasn’t until last year that I started really using them. For the web there is the cost of data transfer and the cost of data storage. You can save on data transfer by adding more files in more formats but you pay more in storage cost. To fully realize the economy of better file formats you need to retire JPEG and not add more files. I finally got convinced that WEBP was supported well enough that it was worth using 𝐚𝐧𝐝 that the image quality was really good with small files. I learned that the disadvantages of new file formats that claim to compress better are real but the better compression isn’t always real. I see people write a blog post where they compress three sample images but a real evaluation project is a lot more than that. So the world may well be better off with a second-best file format that people really use than being stuck with JPEG because people are struggling to make up their mind about what new format to use, support, etc.

JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago

I believe current AVIF decoders and encoders are not competitive against JPEG1 codecs from the libjxl project. Check out the 'jpegli' effort. My guesswork is that jpegli is likely 5-10 % better for photography use case than AVIF. Jpegli also allows for similar HDR dynamics, 10-12 bits, like AVIF.

JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
Jpegli can be further compressed by lossless jpeg1 support in jpeg xl, and some more by using full lossy jpeg xl.

mort96 4y ago

I don't see why you're getting downvoted. With Chrome removing JXL and all the browser vendors' expressed intentions to get behind AVIF, it certainly seems like AVIF is the clear winner in this round of the image format wars.

sb057 4y ago

An image file format with a maximum resolution of 8193x4320 (without hacking pieces together) can never win a format war, let alone one in 2022 for pete's sake.