computerbuster

4 ms·

1.
by computerbuster 6d ago
Why does that bias the comparison exactly?
2.
by computerbuster 6d ago
Will do going forward, thanks for the feedback!
3.
by computerbuster 11d ago
Well-put.
4.
by computerbuster 11d ago
Luckily, 4:4:4 AVIF is supported in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari, right now. This won't ever regress.
5.
by computerbuster 11d ago
I was even more surprised & disappointed to see this dismissed as an ad for my company. Think about how fantastic JPEG XL would be for my company: an image codec with tons of fans and an extremely weak reference encoder? Sign me up. I&#
6.
by computerbuster 12d ago
JPEG XL isn’t consistently better enough to justify it. If lossless is so important, maybe we should be campaigning for HALIC.
7.
by computerbuster 12d ago
This comment reads like you summarized the post and didn’t read it
8.
by computerbuster 12d ago
I expected one of these bad-faith readings, so I can address that Aperture is mentioned once and Iris-WebP is only shown in numbers, because I have access to these encoders and thus they cannot be ignored. The only encoders I heavily advert
9.
by computerbuster 12d ago
I’ll just repeat another comment here: “For progressive, I think it's better to show the user something that's obviously a preview, but still has enough detail to be able to know what the picture is of. If you're showing the
10.
by computerbuster 12d ago
There have been a number of experiments to use hardware decoders for images in browsers, all of which have fallen flat; not even Safari does it for AVIF or WebP. Thus, 4:4:4 AVIF is supported absolutely everywhere. Feel free to try it now.
11.
by computerbuster 12d ago
I think libjxl's development is stalled because the format is hard to work with . It wasn't super hard to drive meaningful improvements to AVIF. Yes, SVT-AV1 received and continues to receive development efforts from devs at big
12.
by computerbuster 12d ago
x-axis is encoding speed, Y-axis is BD-rate where higher is better. aperture-alpha is an upcoming encoder from Halide Compression, no more details than that. libaom and SVT-AV1 are both for AVIF; libaom is the AV1 reference encoder.
13.
by computerbuster 12d ago
In the post, I say "I think WebP was a bit too narrowly scoped" This is not a coincidence, but I don't think it was that devs looked at WebP and thought "huh, the lack of 4:4:4 and 10-bit support makes this less compelli
14.
by computerbuster 12d ago
It is getting its try, actively, in libjxl. People like to pretend AV1 got infinite resources; the reality is myself and one other contributor produced the vast majority of the image gains. I built Iris-WebP and aperture-alpha myself, from
15.
by computerbuster 12d ago
Looking forward to a future where we can arbitrarily DoS anyone with a PDF that computes massive swaths of prime numbers.
16.
by computerbuster 12d ago
Not sure if the difference is materially relevant to UX at all. JPEG XL achieves progressive rendering at a great cost to its selection of coding tools, so I side with AVIF's approach.
17.
by computerbuster 12d ago
Lossy Modular isn't efficient enough to compete with even JPEG. Also, look at the graphs – Iris-WebP beats JPEG XL.
18.
by computerbuster 12d ago
I believe wholeheartedly that AVIF's approach is significantly better UX.
19.
by computerbuster 12d ago
> But I do disagree with the last line, "I'm just not personally convinced we need it in browsers any time soon." I believe that if browser adoption is lacking, adoption of the format in places where it makes lots of sense
20.
by computerbuster 12d ago
SVT-AV1-PSY was the first fork, and I created it. When the project matured, the maintainers reached out directly to get things merged – I can confirm it is a great project with great people who are very easy to work with.
21.
by computerbuster 12d ago
Web publishers should definitely be stripping metadata at least, and transcoding isn't much harder. For anyone who cares about bandwidth, transcoding to efficient formats is non-negotiable; if you don't, then why do anything? Just
22.
by computerbuster 12d ago
There exist lossless use cases, for sure. I think most people would be well-served by high-fidelity lossy that saves a lot of bits while still looking perceptually identical. Whoever isn't served by that most likely doesn't care a
23.
by computerbuster 12d ago
I think it is a potentially good camera format, good medical & scientific imaging format, good RAW compression format (Apple uses it in some newer iPhones for this), good media interchange formats for tools like Photoshop (think about s
24.
by computerbuster 12d ago
Think about how many images large platforms deliver every day, and the benefits of saving bits on each of them.
25.
by computerbuster 12d ago
AVIF is royalty-free, with open-source implementations not developed by Google. Google's implementation is libaom; as you can see, SVT-AV1 beats it. SVT-AV1 is developed by a number of companies – historically Meta, Netflix, Intel, ind
26.
by computerbuster 12d ago
AVIF is royalty-free, & SVT-AV1 and libaom are open source. Edit: saw you corrected. Much appreciated!
27.
by computerbuster 12d ago
Lossless was discounted because lossless just isn't very useful on the Web
28.
by computerbuster 12d ago
I'm the author if anyone has questions – AMA
29.
Limitations of Perceptual Image Metrics(halide.cx)
2 points by computerbuster 20d ago|0 comments
30.
Fast Perceptual Image and Video Metrics(github.com)
2 points by computerbuster 3mo ago|1 comments

More ›