← Back to context

Comment by bilkow

23 days ago

> For progressive, JXL shows a blurry mess for the majority of its decode, while AVIF shows a crisp image that clearly shows what is in the image. Go ahead and try the demo yourself! AVIF also supports more than one layer, but I used Team JXL's image on purpose to show that even there, AVIF looks better for 90% of the decode time.

I'm not sure I agree? IMO after about 30% most images look better on JXL than on AVIF, the exceptions being the pigeon, which looks better on JXL after 43% (still less than half) and the sunflower, which looks better on 66% (but you can clearly see what's on the image a lot earlier). Also, blurry convey better the idea of loading and the AVIF version may have some weird artifacts / look weirder (although that's subjective), for example the Quechua woman's eyes are very distorted on the progressive AVIF and, on the Poke bowl, some of the seeds on top of one of the top radish pieces are kind of missing / look like a shadow (while other seeds of the same size appear). In contrast the JXL version is usually blurrier and less saturated at the beginning but is more "uniform/reliable" (distorts all of the "objects" more or less the same), and later it looks finished but actually isn't (which may be a problem on its own).

10 comments

bilkow

Reply
juliobbv  23 days ago

Worth mentioning: their demo only uses two passes for progressive AVIF -- it's just their choice. You can have up to two more intermediate passes, so at 30% you can have something much closer to the original image.

Even still, the demo proves that AVIF can deliver a usable image with up to 3x as fewer bytes as JXL!

  • bilkow  23 days ago

    > their demo only uses two passes for progressive AVIF -- it's just their choice

    Also worth mentioning: AFAIK "their choice" here is just the default, i.e. what `avifenc --progressive` outputs, so maybe if the default is suboptimal, it could be improved?

    > Even still, the demo proves that AVIF can deliver a usable image with up to 3x as fewer bytes as JXL!

    Usable for what? As a clearly loading image / placeholder, I personally like the JXL version better (as already indicated in my previous comment). As a final image I think both of them are unusable, and if that's the intention I think it would be better to encode both aiming for very low quality, maybe also reducing the resolution, without progressive loading, then compare. My understanding is that AVIF is usually better at very low bitrates, so it would probably be better, but I don't think this example "proves" that.

    • juliobbv  23 days ago

      > AFAIK "their choice" here is just the default

      Well, the default in avifenc can always be changed. Do keep in mind there's no "one size fits all" implementation, as customers desire different loading tradeoffs. You might be surprised, but during testing (outside HN), we've seen people actually prefer "2 layer" loading.

      I'm surprised HN likes progressive loading to be more granular, and use that to push back. I'm wondering if there are generational differences at play? Maybe it's the difference of being used to the blurhash vs. old-school JPEG loading experience.

      Anyway, the more expressive mode in avifenc is `--layered` (yes, I know the name is weird).

      > Usable for what?

      Well, focusing on the "Poke bowl" example: with AVIF you can clearly tell apart each ingredient at 8kB. You can derive enough semantic understanding just from this base layer. Having decent edge preservation helps significantly here.

      On the other hand, JXL is just too blurry at 8kB to make sense of the image -- only the egg and carrot are recognizable, maaybe the cucumber? IMO JXL needs the pass at ~28kB to make everything salient, including sprouts and beet. Yes, I know there are subjective effects at play and I'm sure we'll disagree on exact image thresholds, but recognizing objects within an image is so important in real-life use cases.

      3 replies →