Comment by btdmaster
3 years ago
Missing from the article is rav1e, which encodes AV1, and hence AVIF, a lot faster than the reference implementation aom. I've had cases where aom would not finish converting an image in a minute of waiting what rav1e would do in less than 10 seconds.
Is rav1e pareto-curve ahead of libaom pareto-curve?
Does fast rav1e look better than jpegli at high encode speeds?
rav1e is generally head to head with libaom on static images, and which one wins on the speed/quality/size frontier depends a lot on the image and settings, as much as +/- 20%. I suspect rav1e has an inefficient block size selection algorithm, so the particular shape of blocks is a make or break for it.
I’ve only compared rav1e to mozjpeg and libwebp, and at fastest speeds it’s only barely ahead.
Difficult to know without reproduction steps from the article, but I would think it behaves better than libaom for the same quality setting.
Edit: found https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/issues/2759
If Rav1e found better ways of encoding, why would the aom folks copy it in libaom?
Both rav1e and libaom have a speed setting. At similar speeds, I have not observed huge differences in compression performance between the two.