3 ms·

“And others” in the title does not include HEIC: “HEIC is being excluded because it sucks”.

MBCook 4y ago
That really annoyed me. The blog post tries to do a lot to appear scientific and objective, then just tosses something out without testing due to personal opinion. They also mention it’s not free. That would be ok. Just say your test is image quality of free image formats. But that statement just undermined the trust I had in the author up to that point.
- ianlevesque 4y ago
  Given how widely deployed HEIC is I would be curious to know objectively how it fares even if there are practical reasons to not choose it.
- computerbuster 4y ago
  You're probably right that I shouldn't have been so rash, I'm sorry for the omission & my despondent attitude toward HEIC. My enthusiasm is sullied by the presence of royalties & a non-existent web presence because of these royalties which I consider reasonable (where JXL's lack of web presence is questionable). In the future, I may do a similar test and include HEIC, but currently I believe it fares worse than AVIF almost across the board. I'd be willing to see whether or not I'm correct in saying this, though. I should include that under "Takeaway," I do say that " ... this is a non-scientific test," & it shouldn't be considered objective despite the use of metrics. While I find SSIMULACRA2 correlates very well with what my eyes see with these images & most other images, 27 landscape/architecture images aren't enough to draw any objective conclusions here & I'd need to do more testing in the future to produce research-quality work.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    If you said something like that and provided a link right there at explained why it was already known to be worse, that would’ve been understandable. I appreciate what you did. Your article is far above a simple “I looked at five pictures and decided this one was the best“ kind of comparison that you sometimes see. You clearly tried to do a good and fair job with your contenders. The results were interesting to see. This isn’t an area I spent time in so I really didn’t know what to expect going in other than thinking there must be something better than the venerable JPEG.
jandrese 4y ago
I think that line was being a bit cheeky. It seems to be excluded for the same reason JPEG2000 is: it's patent encumbered.
- No1 4y ago
  JPEG2000’s patents have expired, there’s no reason to exclude it due to patents at this point.

That really annoyed me. The blog post tries to do a lot to appear scientific and objective, then just tosses something out without testing due to personal opinion. They also mention it’s not free. That would be ok. Just say your test is image quality of free image formats. But that statement just undermined the trust I had in the author up to that point.

ianlevesque 4y ago
Given how widely deployed HEIC is I would be curious to know objectively how it fares even if there are practical reasons to not choose it.
computerbuster 4y ago
You're probably right that I shouldn't have been so rash, I'm sorry for the omission & my despondent attitude toward HEIC. My enthusiasm is sullied by the presence of royalties & a non-existent web presence because of these royalties which I consider reasonable (where JXL's lack of web presence is questionable). In the future, I may do a similar test and include HEIC, but currently I believe it fares worse than AVIF almost across the board. I'd be willing to see whether or not I'm correct in saying this, though. I should include that under "Takeaway," I do say that " ... this is a non-scientific test," & it shouldn't be considered objective despite the use of metrics. While I find SSIMULACRA2 correlates very well with what my eyes see with these images & most other images, 27 landscape/architecture images aren't enough to draw any objective conclusions here & I'd need to do more testing in the future to produce research-quality work.
- MBCook 4y ago
  If you said something like that and provided a link right there at explained why it was already known to be worse, that would’ve been understandable. I appreciate what you did. Your article is far above a simple “I looked at five pictures and decided this one was the best“ kind of comparison that you sometimes see. You clearly tried to do a good and fair job with your contenders. The results were interesting to see. This isn’t an area I spent time in so I really didn’t know what to expect going in other than thinking there must be something better than the venerable JPEG.

jandrese 4y ago

I think that line was being a bit cheeky. It seems to be excluded for the same reason JPEG2000 is: it's patent encumbered.

No1 4y ago
JPEG2000’s patents have expired, there’s no reason to exclude it due to patents at this point.