2 ms·

Thanks for the link. That does look quite damning, seems that the already-supported AVIF format is overall the better choice based on these metrics.

by vonbon 4y ago

jonsneyers 4y ago
Actually, the results of the AVIF team's comparison do show the value of JPEG XL, if you look a bit further than the main page and dig into the actual plots. E.g. according to this plot, JXL is about 15% better than AVIF for 'web quality' images (around 1 bpp): https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/images/subset1/rateplots/subset1_avif-jxl_t-1_avif-s7_jxl-s6_ssimulacra2__bpp-0.1-3.0.png https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/images/subset... Here is a detailed analysis: https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons
zppln 4y ago
Keep in mind that it's from the AVIF team though. :)
JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
Try to replicate it.
aidenn0 4y ago
I have a moderate sized selection of mostly B&W comics. JXL is the first format that out performs JPEG 2000 on them. It cleans AVIF's clock on them, in a rather unfair comparison of JXL's default settings vs hand tuned settings for AVIF with different settings for color and B&W comics. It also far outperforms an optipng encoded PNG for lossless. I know either my corpus or my eyeball is different from the benchmarks used by AVIF but I do want to share this outlier.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- brigade 4y ago
  Not sure about your comparison specifically, but in general the hard edges in comics should be an ideal case for AV1's spatial prediction. JPEG-XL eschewed that in favor of being inherently progressive; its splines promised to make up some of the difference but last I checked the encoder still doesn't use them. Categorically, this is the main reason why even the main JPEG-XL dev agrees that AVIF is currently better with non-photo content [1] [1] https://twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1550161314961555457 https://twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1550161314961555457
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    It's the stippling and hatching that most compression formats struggle with
  - JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
    I observe that it depends on which quality you aim to. At low quality AVIF does a good job with line drawings. I suspect much of it is because of the 8-color local palette mode. When you raise the quality/size a tiny bit (to need 9+ unique colors in an area), JPEG XL does an equal job with the edges, but starts getting all the subtleties, lonely faint dots, noisy or weak textures right, whereas it can be impossible to convince an AVIF encoder to store them at any quality setting. Cartoon/anime collectors seem to be passionate about image quality and they may have observed the same as I have. At least I have learned a lot about image quality from anime fans during my image compression career. Web devs don't care that much about quality, they are more looking into creating monetary savings in bandwidth and sometimes trying to lower the latencies. E-commerce is yet another thing, where the image quality may turn into revenue and becomes important again.
youngtaff 4y ago
There are lots of questions about that data for example why was the testing carried out in Chrome 92? https://mobile.twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1598774837723422721 https://mobile.twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/159877483772342...

Thanks for the link. That does look quite damning, seems that the already-supported AVIF format is overall the better choice based on these metrics.

by vonbon 4y ago

Thanks for the link. That does look quite damning, seems that the already-supported AVIF format is overall the better choice based on these metrics.

jonsneyers 4y ago

Actually, the results of the AVIF team's comparison do show the value of JPEG XL, if you look a bit further than the main page and dig into the actual plots. E.g. according to this plot, JXL is about 15% better than AVIF for 'web quality' images (around 1 bpp): https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/images/subset1/rateplots/subset1_avif-jxl_t-1_avif-s7_jxl-s6_ssimulacra2__bpp-0.1-3.0.png https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/images/subset... Here is a detailed analysis: https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons

zppln 4y ago

Keep in mind that it's from the AVIF team though. :)

JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago

Try to replicate it.

aidenn0 4y ago

I have a moderate sized selection of mostly B&W comics. JXL is the first format that out performs JPEG 2000 on them. It cleans AVIF's clock on them, in a rather unfair comparison of JXL's default settings vs hand tuned settings for AVIF with different settings for color and B&W comics. It also far outperforms an optipng encoded PNG for lossless. I know either my corpus or my eyeball is different from the benchmarks used by AVIF but I do want to share this outlier.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
brigade 4y ago
Not sure about your comparison specifically, but in general the hard edges in comics should be an ideal case for AV1's spatial prediction. JPEG-XL eschewed that in favor of being inherently progressive; its splines promised to make up some of the difference but last I checked the encoder still doesn't use them. Categorically, this is the main reason why even the main JPEG-XL dev agrees that AVIF is currently better with non-photo content [1] [1] https://twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1550161314961555457 https://twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1550161314961555457
- aidenn0 4y ago
  It's the stippling and hatching that most compression formats struggle with
- JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
  I observe that it depends on which quality you aim to. At low quality AVIF does a good job with line drawings. I suspect much of it is because of the 8-color local palette mode. When you raise the quality/size a tiny bit (to need 9+ unique colors in an area), JPEG XL does an equal job with the edges, but starts getting all the subtleties, lonely faint dots, noisy or weak textures right, whereas it can be impossible to convince an AVIF encoder to store them at any quality setting. Cartoon/anime collectors seem to be passionate about image quality and they may have observed the same as I have. At least I have learned a lot about image quality from anime fans during my image compression career. Web devs don't care that much about quality, they are more looking into creating monetary savings in bandwidth and sometimes trying to lower the latencies. E-commerce is yet another thing, where the image quality may turn into revenue and becomes important again.

youngtaff 4y ago

There are lots of questions about that data for example why was the testing carried out in Chrome 92? https://mobile.twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1598774837723422721 https://mobile.twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/159877483772342...