> I wouldn't be too put out if either "won". AVIF sort of makes sense in how easy it is to support with the support of AV1 in the first place, but it is one of

> I wouldn't be too put out if either "won". AVIF sort of makes sense in how easy it is to support with the support of AV1 in the first place, but it is one of a long line of still-image codecs based on video codecs (coming to mind immediately are WebP and BPG), and the domain of video is significantly different from that of still images. Individual frames don't need to be as optimal for viewing as the aggregate sequence, fine details often get lost. Progressive decoding basically doesn't exist. Presumably the upper pixel limit is drastically limited for what could be in a still image format. JXL makes an entirely different set of tradeoffs that really should pit it as the winner for a better still image format. Better quality, wider colorspace support, smaller files, progressive decoding, et al. Just look at some of the sample pages. To me, it's immediately obvious AVIF's downfalls in fine details versus JXL.