11–20 of 31 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FLIF seems to compress higher but to my knowledge there is no major browser support. AVIF support is scheduled for Firefox 80 and Chrome 85 by the end of this month (August 25).
Knowing nothing about the formats, why the difference in adoption?
Further reading: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-mozilla-av1-photo-format-co...
Is there a poly fill js/warm decoder for older browsers?
How are the compression and decompression speeds compared to e.g. turbojpeg? Is there a poly fill js/warm decoder for older browsers?
There is a polyfill for old browsers but our recommendation would be to use the graceful degradation of the tag which falls back to if .avif or .webp is not supported.
Only supported by Chrome ATM.
It’s 2020 and its mind-boggling that this isn’t a standard behavior already.
Imagine right-clicking on a thumbnail and being able to natively save a 4MB file from it.
Imagine having a single that can be zoomed in all the way to 100% just like your phone’s Photos app can do, without loading the whole image beforehand.
https://caniuse.com/#feat=avif Only supported by Chrome ATM.
It's a missed opportunity that we can't just one 1 frame AV1 files as images. Had this been anticipated we wouldn't have to push two standards and two implementations everywhere.
Those other formats weren't developed by huge corporations who can force it into browsers through pure hegemony. That's probably a factor.
How does it compare with FLIF? What use cases would it excel on/have that the other wouldn't/doesn't?
FLIF seems to compress higher but to my knowledge there is no major browser support. AVIF support is scheduled for Firefox 80 and Chrome 85 by the end of this month (August 25).