4 ms·

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 prese

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.