Rendered at 17:34:17 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Aldipower 7 minutes ago [-]
AVIF consumes around 25 times more CPU during encoding as JPEG. Take this in consideration if you pay for the power consumption. And on the user-facing side, if you upload an images it takes f.ex. 12 seconds (sic!) and not half a second.
Have you tried Google's jpegli encoder? I find that it generally matches webp for most image types. Quantized png is usually best for anything with a limited color palette though.
TurboSkyline 39 minutes ago [-]
> for screenshots though, and WebP works better for those
Interesting! Better in terms of more quality preserved or smaller file size? Have you found other types of images where this applies?
remix2000 16 minutes ago [-]
Does AVIF carry the same patent risks as full/motion AV1?
(I’m not saying I support the claims or not, I have no idea about their technical and let alone legal merit, just thinking that there are attempts at enforcement against sites streaming AV1 and whether choosing AV1 puts say my site at risk)
kasabali 50 minutes ago [-]
> Even YouTube is preparing to move beyond AV1 and begin streaming video using AV2, potentially as early as 2027. If a company handling the enormous amount of video that YouTube does sees the benefits of a more efficient format, shouldn't the rest of the internet be taking a closer look at what we can do with images and video too?
Odd argument.
Image isn’t video and we are not YouTube.
d2kx 42 minutes ago [-]
not an odd argument. AVIF is based on AV1, so what they mean is that since we accept YouTube's AV1 usage as mainstream nowadays, so should be it's image part
nwah1 1 hours ago [-]
Regular JPEG can also be compressed much more than it usually is:
Because whenever I download an image and its webp, the next thing i do is i google "webp to png/jpg" conversation because yeah service XY or Tool Z doesn't support it.
Or my Fire TV Stick :(
I configure my nginx to serve everything available though. Thats what i can do.
flerchin 1 hours ago [-]
Maybe a middle out compression is the way to go.
BorisMelnik 51 minutes ago [-]
I swear I saw this exact post here on HN last week
DivingForGold 2 days ago [-]
Seems about time we have ANOTHER round of serious investigations into collusion in the memory industry artificially driving up prices ...
Agree, though I do miss the clarity of if an image is lossy or lossless just by extension. (Obviously a png could be produced from a heavily compressed jpg, but it is still a handy heuristic in my image pipelines)
anilgulecha 1 hours ago [-]
Jpeg-XL's key win was only lossless translation of existing jpeg to a modern format. Mostly for archives where you don't want a lossy translation.
In terms of picture quality for given size, AVIF has it solidly beat.
mort96 1 hours ago [-]
You could make an argument that we should have AVIF everywhere on the web. But if you want a single image format to be everywhere, I think JPEG-XL is just better suited. AVIF has restrictions on resolutions and number of planes, and doesn't do lossless very well. It's competitive with AVIF on lossy image quality (even though yes, AVIF does seem like it tends to consistently have the advantage there).
anilgulecha 1 hours ago [-]
Image formats goes in era, and there's no need for monoculture. But given we're talking exabytes of data, for this era, the author rightly articulates why AVIF should win. Should JPEGXL2 beat it in the future then it can take over for a decade. We seem to essentially have gone through like 4 formats so far: gif, jpg, PNG and webp. On vector side, SVG has no real competition - it's solid.
mort96 1 hours ago [-]
The author is explicitly arguing for an AVIF monoculture. AVIF isn't an appropriate format for an image format monoculture, but JPEG-XL could be.
"We should use AVIF for most web images" is a different statement which I have no problem with.
1 hours ago [-]
0x_rs 40 minutes ago [-]
Enough keyframe-based "image" formats, please! The internet and the world at large needs a real and proper modern format, not some quick hacks from bored engineers that only contribute to the endless fragmentation online and do not leverage any existing infrastructure for serving video. There's more than just crappy ultra-low-quality thumbnails around. WebP, AVIF are the webscale equivalent of serving images.
I added AVIF support to my personal image resizing tool recently - https://tools.simonwillison.net/image-resize-quality - I mostly use that for screenshots though, and WebP works better for those.
Interesting! Better in terms of more quality preserved or smaller file size? Have you found other types of images where this applies?
(I’m not saying I support the claims or not, I have no idea about their technical and let alone legal merit, just thinking that there are attempts at enforcement against sites streaming AV1 and whether choosing AV1 puts say my site at risk)
Odd argument.
Image isn’t video and we are not YouTube.
https://symbiogenesis.github.io/DotJpegli/
However, video would matter so much more than images, to the overall internet, that images don't even matter by comparison.
I’ll just drop my AVIF local support for Wordpress plugin here: https://github.com/ddegner/avif-local-support
Because whenever I download an image and its webp, the next thing i do is i google "webp to png/jpg" conversation because yeah service XY or Tool Z doesn't support it.
Or my Fire TV Stick :(
I configure my nginx to serve everything available though. Thats what i can do.
JPEG XL vs. AVIF for web use-cases
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50120224
In terms of picture quality for given size, AVIF has it solidly beat.
"We should use AVIF for most web images" is a different statement which I have no problem with.