> Sure, that was kind of my point, but I think it's important to point out it's the default. I had read somewhere else in the comments that they just "happened"

> Sure, that was kind of my point, but I think it's important to point out it's the default. I had read somewhere else in the comments that they just "happened" to use 2 passes (that I now realized was also written by you), that I interpreted as them maybe making a bad decision in the comparison page, but I think it's very reasonable to use the default. Yeah, I can see that. By "happened" I meant that the default is good and serves a common use case, but also it can't be expected for a 2-pass AVIF to remotely match JXL's finely-incremental experience. The tricky thing is coming up with a good-enough compromise -- one extreme wants their first pass be more like a blurhash (quality 0, 1/8 scaling), while the other wants a medium quality image (quality 30-40, full scaling), and everybody else is in between. For reference, `avifenc --progressive` is currently quality 10, 1/2 scaling. > Hmmm I don't know, maybe. TBF with today's usual internet speeds progressive loading isn't as important as it was as more steps make less sense if you have a good connection. Interestingly enough, I frequently get reminded of spotty internet connections -- turns out you just need to take the subway hah. This is why I'm so passionate about progressive image loading in general. > As a note, I think what I'd prefer would be 2 passes, with the 1st pass being around how JXL looks at around 11% / 39 kB. That sounds like you want your first pass be half scaling, around quality 25: ``` avifenc --layered -q 25 --scaling-mode 1/2 image1.png -q:u <quality> --scaling-mode:u 1 image2.png image.avif ``` `image1.png` and `image2.png` can be the same source image. You can blur `image1.png` or even better: add a tiny "loading" icon to indicate the image is still downloading.