5 ms·

Interestingly in the latest FF on Linux for some reason for me the colors are washed out for AVIF and JPEGXL but not the other formats. Looking fine in Chromium

by eis 3y ago

Interestingly in the latest FF on Linux for some reason for me the colors are washed out for AVIF and JPEGXL but not the other formats. Looking fine in Chromium though. When zooming in 3x I can say that AVIF looks significantly better than JPEGXL in the lower quality settings while being consistently a little bit smaller in filesize. There is better color retention, less noise and looks sharper. At the "tiny" setting the difference is night and day. At the highest setting they are so close enough that I wouldn't say there's a clear winner for me after going through all the images.

cycomanic 3y ago
Agreed, take the Steinway image for example, jpegxl makes a mess of it with the tiny setting, lots of artifacts much detail lost (e.g. the benches on the right, or the piano keys on the left).
spider-mario 3y ago
On the “Vid Gajsek” image posted elsewhere in the thread, AVIF consistently removes texture in the shadow between the receipt and the cup, even at size “large”. At size “medium”, it does so across the entire cup. Disclaimer: JPEG XL contributor.
- ilyt 3y ago
  It does but the middle bit looks far better, AV1/tiny is comparable to JXL/large when only looking at middle bit, weirdly enough, everything around is of course worse https://imgur.com/a/PeHlyE4 https://imgur.com/a/PeHlyE4
- eis 3y ago
  I am sure there are examples where JPEG XL outperforms AVIF. But looking through all those images in the test sample I get the impression that AVIF on average in the lowest quality setting is significantly better than JPEG XL. I agree that the example you presented indeed has the mentioned shadow issue in AVIF.
  - JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
    If tiny quality was 1.0 bpp, low quality 1.5 bpp, and medium quality 2.5 bpp and high quality 4.0 bpp, JPEG XL would win in all categories. In reality cameras produce about 3.5-4.5 bpp, and the internet uses an average of 2 bpp for photographs.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Realistically AVIF would mostly be used to reduce file size relative to JPEG, not increase quality.

by eis 3y ago

cycomanic 3y ago

Agreed, take the Steinway image for example, jpegxl makes a mess of it with the tiny setting, lots of artifacts much detail lost (e.g. the benches on the right, or the piano keys on the left).

spider-mario 3y ago

On the “Vid Gajsek” image posted elsewhere in the thread, AVIF consistently removes texture in the shadow between the receipt and the cup, even at size “large”. At size “medium”, it does so across the entire cup. Disclaimer: JPEG XL contributor.

ilyt 3y ago
It does but the middle bit looks far better, AV1/tiny is comparable to JXL/large when only looking at middle bit, weirdly enough, everything around is of course worse https://imgur.com/a/PeHlyE4 https://imgur.com/a/PeHlyE4
eis 3y ago
I am sure there are examples where JPEG XL outperforms AVIF. But looking through all those images in the test sample I get the impression that AVIF on average in the lowest quality setting is significantly better than JPEG XL. I agree that the example you presented indeed has the mentioned shadow issue in AVIF.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
  If tiny quality was 1.0 bpp, low quality 1.5 bpp, and medium quality 2.5 bpp and high quality 4.0 bpp, JPEG XL would win in all categories. In reality cameras produce about 3.5-4.5 bpp, and the internet uses an average of 2 bpp for photographs.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Realistically AVIF would mostly be used to reduce file size relative to JPEG, not increase quality.