4 ms·
I wish avif images had more reasonable computational requirements. I find the format inferior to jpeg-xl but the difference isn’t that huge - both are good enou
by throwaway09809 8mo ago
I wish avif images had more reasonable computational requirements. I find the format inferior to jpeg-xl but the difference isn’t that huge - both are good enough imo. Sadly a folder full of avif files will make pretty much any consumer cpu in existence chug like mad, it’s completely unusable for actually using those images as an average end user does unless you happen to have something silly like 64 core epyc.
jxl is already slower than I’d like, but it’s good enough on a modern machine. avif… isn’t.
- mrbluecoat 8mo agoThis is exactly my experience. On paper and in laboratory settings with 64-core machines and 128GB memory, AV1/AVIF is better in every way but in the real world it's too taxing on ordinary hardware.
- dagmx 8mo agoWhat hardware are you using? My Mac’s seem to handle large amounts of avif just fine without chugging.
- the8472 8mo agoAVIF uses AV1 as the codec, so I assume the hardware units used to accelerate video decoding should work for images too, at least when it matches the profiles supported by the hardware.
- Scaevolus 8mo agoHardware video decoding APIs often have significantly more latency than software decoders, to the point that it's a noticeable several hundred milliseconds of delay. If they have this delay, they're unusable for images.
- the8472 8mo agoI assume that "a folder full of avif files" was referring to thumbnailing, that's more of a bulk operation than latency-sensitive.