4 ms·

AVIF is for sure my favorite image format right now. No other format has the quadfecta of lossless, HDR, transparency, browser support. Plus as you said, for ve

AVIF is for sure my favorite image format right now. No other format has the quadfecta of lossless, HDR, transparency, browser support. Plus as you said, for very compressed images it looks amazing. It blows my mind how small AVIF files can be. Also, unlike HEIC and Ultra HDR JPEG, it actually supports HDR natively as part of the file format rather than doing the hacky sidecar gain map trick. I know it doesn't matter to everyone, but I just love HDR and AVIF is the only format that I feel like really takes it seriously.

ksec 4mo ago
>but I just love HDR and AVIF is the only format that I feel like really takes it seriously. JPEG XL would like a word.
- gen2brain 4mo ago
  He would like a word, but browsers said no?
  - Gigachad 4mo ago
    Firefox is getting the flag to turn it on in the next release, chromium just added it back now there is a rust decoder. The wheels are turning again. Browser support for jpeg xl is very much in progress again.
    - throw0101a 4mo ago
      And it is already present in Safari (and more generally in iOS and macOS, as part of the standard OS graphics library): * https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/avvideocodectype/jpegxl https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/avvid... * https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/why-apple-uses-jpeg-xl-in-the-iphone-16-and-what-it-means-for-your-photos/ https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/why-apple-uses-jpeg-xl-in-t...
erwan577 4mo ago
Do you think advanced users should consider AVIF/AVIF2 along JPEGXL for long term pictures archival ? Which kind of encode settings do you suggest for conversion from high resolution RAWs or JPEGs ?
- mikae1 4mo ago
  Depends on if you want lossy or lossless.
- ChadNauseam 4mo ago
  For long term archival, JXL is better, the only issue with it is browser and device support
  - Gigachad 4mo ago
    I have been using JXL for all my personal photos. My photo server Immich will just transcode a JPEG to display on devices which don't natively support JXL.
  - afiori 4mo ago
    Long term archival is often also about long term support and there just going with the most popular/supported ones might be a safer bet, eg in the extreme case if I wanted to save some digital photos in a time capsule I would likely choose PNG and JPEG
BoingBoomTschak 4mo ago
I really don't. 1. Lossless AVIF is a joke often beaten by WebP and even PNG. Even worse for grayscale. 2. Chroma subsampling remains a bad idea for still images unless the resolution is high enough to hide the artifacts. 3. Tooling is the worst part, AV1 encoders are basically focused 99% on video and leave a measly 1% to image; unlike JXL, of course. SVT-AV1 still doesn't do YUV444 and libaom was unusable. Fortunately, the unpaid enthusiasts were here: https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/the-multimedia-renaissance/#images https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/the-multimedia-renaissanc... (and more recently https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/oavif/ https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/oavif/) I don't see AVIF being used for lossless, which is the largest reason I'd prefer JXL to win: one codec to rule them all sure is an alluring future.
- ChadNauseam 4mo ago
  > 2. Chroma subsampling remains a bad idea for still images unless the resolution is high enough to hide the artifacts. Hmm, I don't think so. I think at a fixed file size, chroma subsampling usually allows you to have fewer noticeable artifacts. Humans are so much more sensitive to luma that it doesn't make sense to treat it equally to chroma with respect to lossy compression. That said, if you don't like it, AVIF supports 4:4:4 just fine. In my tests, AVIF beats PNG easily for lossless compression of actual photographs (for things like charts and screenshots, PNG wins of course). And for lossy, it's much smaller than jpeg and supports HDR unlike WebP. So if you need HDR and are doing lossy compression on the web, it's your best option as far as I know.
  - BoingBoomTschak 4mo ago
    > Hmm, I don't think so. I think at a fixed file size, chroma subsampling usually allows you to have fewer noticeable artifacts At low bpp, certainly. Though "certainly" is to be quantified since chroma is quite cheap in AV1, thanks to CfL. > Humans are so much more sensitive to luma that it doesn't make sense to treat it equally to chroma with respect to lossy compression The problem is that this is completely dependent on material. Sharp and/or bright red is too common a killer sample (cf https://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/SVT-AV1/-/work_items/2211 https://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/SVT-AV1/-/work_items/2211). Make sense for video where you'll have a hard time seeing it, but for still pictures it's too problematic to apply indiscriminately unless you're encoding at potato quality anyway. > That said, if you don't like it, AVIF supports 4:4:4 just fine. I know, but libaom is basically a reference codec, SVT-AV1 is the only "real" one we got and it doesn't =( > In my tests, AVIF beats PNG easily for lossless compression of actual photographs You're right, I wrongly put photographs aside where AVIF certainly is better. It did "okay" in my tests (NB: ImageMagick doesn't do "lossless" RGB AVIF even with `-quality 100` unless you add `-define heic:chroma=444 -define heic:cicp=1/13/0/1`; you can verify with `magick compare -metric AE ref.png out.avif /dev/null`). > And for lossy, it's much smaller than jpeg At decent quality, is it that much better than jpegli (https://opensource.googleblog.com/2024/04/introducing-jpegli-new-jpeg-coding-library.html https://opensource.googleblog.com/2024/04/introducing-jpegli...) or even mozjpeg ? If we add FGS to the equation, AVIF has the potential to be much better, though.

ksec 4mo ago

>but I just love HDR and AVIF is the only format that I feel like really takes it seriously. JPEG XL would like a word.

gen2brain 4mo ago
He would like a word, but browsers said no?
- Gigachad 4mo ago
  Firefox is getting the flag to turn it on in the next release, chromium just added it back now there is a rust decoder. The wheels are turning again. Browser support for jpeg xl is very much in progress again.
  - throw0101a 4mo ago
    And it is already present in Safari (and more generally in iOS and macOS, as part of the standard OS graphics library): * https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/avvideocodectype/jpegxl https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/avvid... * https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/why-apple-uses-jpeg-xl-in-the-iphone-16-and-what-it-means-for-your-photos/ https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/why-apple-uses-jpeg-xl-in-t...

erwan577 4mo ago

Do you think advanced users should consider AVIF/AVIF2 along JPEGXL for long term pictures archival ? Which kind of encode settings do you suggest for conversion from high resolution RAWs or JPEGs ?

mikae1 4mo ago
Depends on if you want lossy or lossless.
ChadNauseam 4mo ago
For long term archival, JXL is better, the only issue with it is browser and device support
- Gigachad 4mo ago
  I have been using JXL for all my personal photos. My photo server Immich will just transcode a JPEG to display on devices which don't natively support JXL.
- afiori 4mo ago
  Long term archival is often also about long term support and there just going with the most popular/supported ones might be a safer bet, eg in the extreme case if I wanted to save some digital photos in a time capsule I would likely choose PNG and JPEG

BoingBoomTschak 4mo ago

I really don't. 1. Lossless AVIF is a joke often beaten by WebP and even PNG. Even worse for grayscale. 2. Chroma subsampling remains a bad idea for still images unless the resolution is high enough to hide the artifacts. 3. Tooling is the worst part, AV1 encoders are basically focused 99% on video and leave a measly 1% to image; unlike JXL, of course. SVT-AV1 still doesn't do YUV444 and libaom was unusable. Fortunately, the unpaid enthusiasts were here: https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/the-multimedia-renaissance/#images https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/the-multimedia-renaissanc... (and more recently https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/oavif/ https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/oavif/) I don't see AVIF being used for lossless, which is the largest reason I'd prefer JXL to win: one codec to rule them all sure is an alluring future.

ChadNauseam 4mo ago
> 2. Chroma subsampling remains a bad idea for still images unless the resolution is high enough to hide the artifacts. Hmm, I don't think so. I think at a fixed file size, chroma subsampling usually allows you to have fewer noticeable artifacts. Humans are so much more sensitive to luma that it doesn't make sense to treat it equally to chroma with respect to lossy compression. That said, if you don't like it, AVIF supports 4:4:4 just fine. In my tests, AVIF beats PNG easily for lossless compression of actual photographs (for things like charts and screenshots, PNG wins of course). And for lossy, it's much smaller than jpeg and supports HDR unlike WebP. So if you need HDR and are doing lossy compression on the web, it's your best option as far as I know.
- BoingBoomTschak 4mo ago
  > Hmm, I don't think so. I think at a fixed file size, chroma subsampling usually allows you to have fewer noticeable artifacts At low bpp, certainly. Though "certainly" is to be quantified since chroma is quite cheap in AV1, thanks to CfL. > Humans are so much more sensitive to luma that it doesn't make sense to treat it equally to chroma with respect to lossy compression The problem is that this is completely dependent on material. Sharp and/or bright red is too common a killer sample (cf https://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/SVT-AV1/-/work_items/2211 https://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/SVT-AV1/-/work_items/2211). Make sense for video where you'll have a hard time seeing it, but for still pictures it's too problematic to apply indiscriminately unless you're encoding at potato quality anyway. > That said, if you don't like it, AVIF supports 4:4:4 just fine. I know, but libaom is basically a reference codec, SVT-AV1 is the only "real" one we got and it doesn't =( > In my tests, AVIF beats PNG easily for lossless compression of actual photographs You're right, I wrongly put photographs aside where AVIF certainly is better. It did "okay" in my tests (NB: ImageMagick doesn't do "lossless" RGB AVIF even with `-quality 100` unless you add `-define heic:chroma=444 -define heic:cicp=1/13/0/1`; you can verify with `magick compare -metric AE ref.png out.avif /dev/null`). > And for lossy, it's much smaller than jpeg At decent quality, is it that much better than jpegli (https://opensource.googleblog.com/2024/04/introducing-jpegli-new-jpeg-coding-library.html https://opensource.googleblog.com/2024/04/introducing-jpegli...) or even mozjpeg ? If we add FGS to the equation, AVIF has the potential to be much better, though.