5 ms·

Using SSIMULACRA2, I've compared Intel's QuickSync Video to Nvidia's NVENC encoder across Linux & Windows. They compete against other dedicated encoding hardwar

Using SSIMULACRA2, I've compared Intel's QuickSync Video to Nvidia's NVENC encoder across Linux & Windows. They compete against other dedicated encoding hardware for different codecs across different GPUs, including an Intel iGPU.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
> Please be aware that some images may not load on this page unless your browser supports JPEG-XL. Using an image format supported by exactly one browser - one that has less than 5% of the market share - without providing a fallback - is a pretty questionable choice. I can't imagine that the bandwidth savings are even remotely significant to justify such a choice over an optimized PNG, JPEG, or the nearly-universally-supported webp.
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  tl;dr: AVIF, HEIC and WEBP all handily beat JXL for the Minecraft and CSGO screenshot. From the article, minecraft.jxl is 545275 bytes. Using imagemagick[1] to convert to various formats at 8bit depth: 191875 36.39% csgo.avif 288048 54.63% csgo.webp 349204 66.23% csgo.heic 507882 96.32% csgo-8bit.jxl 511727 97.05% csgo-85.jpg 527282 100.00% csgo.jxl 960946 182.25% csgo-95.jpg 3665475 695.16% csgo.png 183935 33.73% minecraft.avif 266890 48.95% minecraft.webp 358482 65.74% minecraft.heic 490623 89.98% minecraft-85.jpg 522250 95.78% minecraft-8bit.jxl 545275 100.00% minecraft.jxl 1047533 192.11% minecraft-95.jpg 3018052 553.49% minecraft.png [1] Version: ImageMagick 7.1.1-6 Q16-HDRI aarch64 21020 https://imagemagick.org https://imagemagick.org
  - zokier 3y ago
    You can't just compare lossy image formats on size alone, you have to factor in image quality. All of the formats have one or more quality parameters that have huge impact on size/quality.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      When it comes to computer screenshots, it's PNG or another lossless format or GTFO. Even moreso if the purpose is comparing image quality of the screenshots' contents. (No, I did not see those JPEG-XL images because Chromium laughs at it.[1]) [1]: https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/04/16/002204/fsf-says-googles-decision-to-deprecate-jpeg-xl-emphasizes-need-for-browser-choice https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/04/16/002204/fsf-says-goo...
  - ksec 3y ago
    This is coming from a 2009 account so I am guessing all these results have a similar score in quality testing? If so which metric did you measure it with?

KennyBlanken 3y ago

> Please be aware that some images may not load on this page unless your browser supports JPEG-XL. Using an image format supported by exactly one browser - one that has less than 5% of the market share - without providing a fallback - is a pretty questionable choice. I can't imagine that the bandwidth savings are even remotely significant to justify such a choice over an optimized PNG, JPEG, or the nearly-universally-supported webp.

zimpenfish 3y ago
tl;dr: AVIF, HEIC and WEBP all handily beat JXL for the Minecraft and CSGO screenshot. From the article, minecraft.jxl is 545275 bytes. Using imagemagick[1] to convert to various formats at 8bit depth: 191875 36.39% csgo.avif 288048 54.63% csgo.webp 349204 66.23% csgo.heic 507882 96.32% csgo-8bit.jxl 511727 97.05% csgo-85.jpg 527282 100.00% csgo.jxl 960946 182.25% csgo-95.jpg 3665475 695.16% csgo.png 183935 33.73% minecraft.avif 266890 48.95% minecraft.webp 358482 65.74% minecraft.heic 490623 89.98% minecraft-85.jpg 522250 95.78% minecraft-8bit.jxl 545275 100.00% minecraft.jxl 1047533 192.11% minecraft-95.jpg 3018052 553.49% minecraft.png [1] Version: ImageMagick 7.1.1-6 Q16-HDRI aarch64 21020 https://imagemagick.org https://imagemagick.org
- zokier 3y ago
  You can't just compare lossy image formats on size alone, you have to factor in image quality. All of the formats have one or more quality parameters that have huge impact on size/quality.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    When it comes to computer screenshots, it's PNG or another lossless format or GTFO. Even moreso if the purpose is comparing image quality of the screenshots' contents. (No, I did not see those JPEG-XL images because Chromium laughs at it.[1]) [1]: https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/04/16/002204/fsf-says-googles-decision-to-deprecate-jpeg-xl-emphasizes-need-for-browser-choice https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/04/16/002204/fsf-says-goo...
- ksec 3y ago
  This is coming from a 2009 account so I am guessing all these results have a similar score in quality testing? If so which metric did you measure it with?