Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
giannirosato.com
Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#2Super cool! I wonder if the same technique could be useful for video encoding too.
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#3AVIF adoption is still lagging behind unfortunately. Even GitHub and GitLab didn't enable it yet despite pending feature requests.
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#4AVIF adoption is still lagging behind unfortunately. Even GitHub and GitLab didn't enable it yet despite pending feature requests.
I mean to be fair writing is on the wall some when a superior format like jpegxl exists but is arbitrarily held back purely because Google's Chromium team wants to push the format they made over the format another Google team worked on.
Superior in file size, image quality, computation required for equivalent quality encoding, no arbitrary resolution caps, progressive decoding which also lets you create 'thumbnails' or resizes by just cutting the byte stream, while also having features to help legacy jpeg files benefit from newer compression losslessly. The only benchmark avif bests at is abhorrently low quality levels that no one genuinely uses.
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#5AVIF adoption is still lagging behind unfortunately. Even GitHub and GitLab didn't enable it yet despite pending feature requests.
I mean to be fair writing is on the wall some when a superior format like jpegxl exists but is arbitrarily held back purely because Google's Chromium team wants to push the format they made over the format another Google team worked on. Superior in file size, image quality, computation required for equivalent quality encoding, no arbitrary resolution caps, progressive decoding which also lets you create 'thumbnails'…
Which format are you saying the Chromium team made and wants to push in favor of jxl?
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean to be fair writing is on the wall some when a superior format like jpegxl exists but is arbitrarily held back purely because Google's Chromium team wants to push the format they made over the format another Google team worked on. Superior in file size, image quality, computation required for equivalent quality encoding, no arbitrary resolution caps, progressive decoding which also lets you create 'thumbnails'…
Which format are you saying the Chromium team made and wants to push in favor of jxl?
webp
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#7AVIF adoption is still lagging behind unfortunately. Even GitHub and GitLab didn't enable it yet despite pending feature requests.
I mean to be fair writing is on the wall some when a superior format like jpegxl exists but is arbitrarily held back purely because Google's Chromium team wants to push the format they made over the format another Google team worked on. Superior in file size, image quality, computation required for equivalent quality encoding, no arbitrary resolution caps, progressive decoding which also lets you create 'thumbnails'…
All of that is pretty moot and not something I care about much as long as it's better than JPEG. Let everyone support AVIF and stop this perpetual bikeshedding.
AVIF already works in all browsers, all sites should support it.
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#8Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#9Thanks for posting this, really interesting!
I've been building a wordpress plugin that converts JPEG to AVIF on the local server (since everyone wants to sell a service to convert in the cloud).
As a photographer who wants high quality photos on their portfolio website I love how AVIF respects color more the webp.
Re: Oavif: Faster target quality image compression
#10AVIF adoption is still lagging behind unfortunately. Even GitHub and GitLab didn't enable it yet despite pending feature requests.
I mean to be fair writing is on the wall some when a superior format like jpegxl exists but is arbitrarily held back purely because Google's Chromium team wants to push the format they made over the format another Google team worked on. Superior in file size, image quality, computation required for equivalent quality encoding, no arbitrary resolution caps, progressive decoding which also lets you create 'thumbnails'…
I'm a big fan of JPEG XL, but even its most dedicated fans have given up the argument that it is the best for compression efficiency. AVIF's generational leap took place in August 2024 with Tune Still Picture in SVT-AV1-PSY, so much so that Google integrated it into their own encoder and has done very impressive work optimizing it further for the human visual system. JPEG XL's strongest quality is its featureset; lossless JPEG recompression, for example, is really incredible