3 ms·

The Chromium dev who rejected JXL works on AOM code. The manager who commented on it also participated in some articles about the benefits of AV1. JPEG XL coul

The Chromium dev who rejected JXL works on AOM code. The manager who commented on it also participated in some articles about the benefits of AV1. JPEG XL could be twice as efficient as AVIF everywhere, and every blog on the internet could benchmark it, and I suspect it still wouldn't make a difference.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CharlesW 4y ago
> JPEG XL could be twice as efficient as AVIF everywhere… This isn't true if you're talking about encoding size efficiency. See the "Quality" chart at https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html Even JPEG XL cheerleader Cloudinary says, "JPEG XL can obtain 10 to 15% better compression than AVIF" overall, which isn't a sufficient incremental benefit. https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl
- mdasen 4y ago
  I think they were trying to say that even if it were twice as efficient and everyone benchmarked it as twice as efficient, it still wouldn't make a difference because the Google devs are biased towards AVIF. It wasn't arguing that JXL is twice as efficient. It was just arguing that even if it were twice as efficient, it wouldn't matter.
- tagrun 4y ago
  If you look at the plots in the 2nd link you are referring to, they show the gains of AVIF over WebP are also similar, so the case of AVIF "isn't a sufficient incremental benefit" as well by your criteria. Not to mention JPEG XL can do lossless and progressive on top, and that avifenc is much slower than cjxl.
brigade 4y ago
If it was actually 2x more efficient then that would be a very strong argument that I believe would prevail. But I'm kinda surprised so many people are so thirsty for a 10% improvement for natural images at qualities above what most websites serve. Which might even be reduced if AV1 encoder folks ever start caring about that quality range, given that it's way above what's relevant for video... Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL, at which point I hope everyone starts getting angry that format isn't included in browsers... (actually VVC intra should be at that performance level today, not that it has any chance of becoming the basis of a web image format...)
- worrycue 4y ago
  > people are so thirsty for a 10% improvement for natural images at qualities above what most websites serve Because it won’t be just the web that uses JPEG. However whoever wins the support of the web will become THE universal image format for the foreseeable future. > Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL, at which point I hope everyone starts getting angry that format isn't included in browsers... That’s the thing. Once a format has become THE standard it won’t be replaced for a very long time. Might as well get the best bang for buck and pick the best standard that’s availability now.
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  Its not just about bitrate, as avif has some issues: - slow power hungry encoding - slow decoding (though this has gotten better very quickly) - terrible lossless performance - no lossless path from jpeg like jxl. - no support for "exotic" formats like > 12 bpc or many extra channels. Saying avif should be the only format is like saying everyone should depreciate png and just use jpeg. It doesn't cover all use cases, though frankly I am getting sick of slow pngs.
- ksec 4y ago
  >actually VVC intra should be at that performance level today, Yes. Considering HEIC surpassingly did outperform AV1 and JPEG-XL in most of the benchmarks. You can expect VVC intra to be even better. >Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL Well yes. That is on the assumption everyone will settle on AVIF because that 10% is comparing to AV1. That wasn't true until Apple made the move. And AVIF, or AV1 the codec in general likes to remove details. So I would argue it isn't even a great image codec in the first place until it is fixed ( which the AOM has no intention of improving ). The good thing ( or bad thing ) about JPEG XL is that they have now port some of the improvement to existing JPEG via JPEGLI, which gives ~10-15% improvement depending on image type without breaking compatibilities. This improvement on JPEG alone means the next generation replacement codec needs to be much better for it to be meaningful.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

CharlesW 4y ago

> JPEG XL could be twice as efficient as AVIF everywhere… This isn't true if you're talking about encoding size efficiency. See the "Quality" chart at https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html Even JPEG XL cheerleader Cloudinary says, "JPEG XL can obtain 10 to 15% better compression than AVIF" overall, which isn't a sufficient incremental benefit. https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl

mdasen 4y ago
I think they were trying to say that even if it were twice as efficient and everyone benchmarked it as twice as efficient, it still wouldn't make a difference because the Google devs are biased towards AVIF. It wasn't arguing that JXL is twice as efficient. It was just arguing that even if it were twice as efficient, it wouldn't matter.
tagrun 4y ago
If you look at the plots in the 2nd link you are referring to, they show the gains of AVIF over WebP are also similar, so the case of AVIF "isn't a sufficient incremental benefit" as well by your criteria. Not to mention JPEG XL can do lossless and progressive on top, and that avifenc is much slower than cjxl.

brigade 4y ago

If it was actually 2x more efficient then that would be a very strong argument that I believe would prevail. But I'm kinda surprised so many people are so thirsty for a 10% improvement for natural images at qualities above what most websites serve. Which might even be reduced if AV1 encoder folks ever start caring about that quality range, given that it's way above what's relevant for video... Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL, at which point I hope everyone starts getting angry that format isn't included in browsers... (actually VVC intra should be at that performance level today, not that it has any chance of becoming the basis of a web image format...)

worrycue 4y ago
> people are so thirsty for a 10% improvement for natural images at qualities above what most websites serve Because it won’t be just the web that uses JPEG. However whoever wins the support of the web will become THE universal image format for the foreseeable future. > Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL, at which point I hope everyone starts getting angry that format isn't included in browsers... That’s the thing. Once a format has become THE standard it won’t be replaced for a very long time. Might as well get the best bang for buck and pick the best standard that’s availability now.
brucethemoose2 4y ago
Its not just about bitrate, as avif has some issues: - slow power hungry encoding - slow decoding (though this has gotten better very quickly) - terrible lossless performance - no lossless path from jpeg like jxl. - no support for "exotic" formats like > 12 bpc or many extra channels. Saying avif should be the only format is like saying everyone should depreciate png and just use jpeg. It doesn't cover all use cases, though frankly I am getting sick of slow pngs.
ksec 4y ago
>actually VVC intra should be at that performance level today, Yes. Considering HEIC surpassingly did outperform AV1 and JPEG-XL in most of the benchmarks. You can expect VVC intra to be even better. >Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL Well yes. That is on the assumption everyone will settle on AVIF because that 10% is comparing to AV1. That wasn't true until Apple made the move. And AVIF, or AV1 the codec in general likes to remove details. So I would argue it isn't even a great image codec in the first place until it is fixed ( which the AOM has no intention of improving ). The good thing ( or bad thing ) about JPEG XL is that they have now port some of the improvement to existing JPEG via JPEGLI, which gives ~10-15% improvement depending on image type without breaking compatibilities. This improvement on JPEG alone means the next generation replacement codec needs to be much better for it to be meaningful.