YHK - yet another hacker news clone

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.

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)

You can throw almost any image format with open standards into squoosh.app if you're still using software that doesn't open webp.

It's been a while since Photoshop finally got support, though, I can't recall the last time webp posed a problem for me. Then again I don't use a Firestick, no idea how that would deal with image formats, I guess it's no longer being maintained?

It's pretty frustrating that JPEG encoding generally got stuck with libjpeg-turbo.

> 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?

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.

Lol I went through that same webp-vs-avif thing. AVIF supports HDR, so that's a good reason to switch.

Webp is much better for lossless.

I have a similar tool at https://pictolab.io. I use it for tweaking the brightness and satuation of images mostly. For that you want HDR to reduce clipping, and most image formats have surprisingly bad HDR support besides AVIF (and jxl). Jpeg kinda supports it with gain maps but it's kind of tacked-on to the spec. Webp doesn't support HDR at all.

It's also surprisingly hard to support HDR input. For example, Apple uses a weird poorly documented format for the HEIC their iPhones take. I feel like HDR is just kind of a mess right now.

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

AV1 (and AV2) do save a lot of bandwidth, and Youtube already serves AV1 selectively to some users. But the biggest drawback of AV1 is that it needs more resources to even decode. This is especially apparent on old computers that don't have dedicated AV1 encoders or decoders. I discovered this when someone complained to me that PaleMoon on their old PC suddenly consumed a lot of CPU resource causing the PC to stutter - turned out that Youtube was serving AV1 encoded videos on it. Disabling AV1 support in the browser fixed it as Youtube was then forced to serve AVC / H.264 encoded videos.

Say more please, what’s up with keyframes?

> Enough keyframe-based "image" formats, please! The internet and the world at large needs a real and proper modern forma

Are you looking for jpeg XL?

> and do not leverage any existing infrastructure for serving video

How would that leveraging work?

> WebP, AVIF are the webscale equivalent of serving images.

This sounds insulting? But they are images on the Web. I have no idea what you mean here.

Hard to say, but possibly less since it's a still image, not a video, so it inherently corresponds only to a part of AV1.

No need to worry about these risks for using it though. You can never say that no patent troll will surface tomorrow for literally anything. That's not a reason not to use things.

Yes. It’s just an AV1 container. Doesn’t even need to be limited to a single frame (just like GIF and APNG).

Probably not. But if anyone ever decides to enforce patents over AV1 or AVIF, they will fight about every company in Big Tech and quite a bit of Hollywood: https://aomedia.org/about/members/

12 seconds? It takes 7 seconds on my phone, in a wasm runtime using an older version of the encoder.

From my experience throwing random JPEGs at it, it's 3 to 4 times smaller, that's a good chunk of data saved, which in turn is a lot of energy saved on visitors' radios being active.

Unlike with jpeg, you don't need 85 or 95 percent on the quality score, 50 is more than good enough for most pictures on a website.

If you're hosting images and want a fully lossless encoding the CPU time may become a factor, but if you're hosting user generated content, I don't think it's all that bad. Plus, you can just move the encoding part to the user side of the equation and pretend it's part of the upload progress bar if you're desperate to pay the power bill.

You can adjust the speed of both, you don't have to use the default of whatever library versions you're using. My cjxl defaults to 2x more CPU than avifenc's default, but I can make it 30x more or 480x less; libaom certainly lets you waste a lot more CPU than libjxl, if that's what you want.

I don't know if anyone has published an encode time / quality comparison of the various encoders. It'd have to be recent to include this year's libaom image optimizations.