Isn't It Time for AVIF Everywhere?

(michaelponders.com)

22 points | by speckx 1 day ago

9 comments

  • kasabali 1 minute ago
    > Even YouTube is preparing to move beyond AV1 and begin streaming video using AV2, potentially as early as 2027. If a company handling the enormous amount of video that YouTube does sees the benefits of a more efficient format, shouldn't the rest of the internet be taking a closer look at what we can do with images and video too?

    Odd argument.

    Image isn’t video and we are not YouTube.

  • simonw 10 minutes ago
    Only just started habitually using WebP...

    I added AVIF support to my personal image resizing tool recently - https://tools.simonwillison.net/image-resize-quality - I mostly use that for screenshots though, and WebP works better for those.

  • BorisMelnik 3 minutes ago
    I swear I saw this exact post here on HN last week
  • origini 22 minutes ago
    Yeah why not?

    Because whenever I download an image and its webp, the next thing i do is i google "webp to png/jpg" conversation because yeah service XY or Tool Z doesn't support it.

    Or my Fire TV Stick :(

    I configure my nginx to serve everything available though. Thats what i can do.

  • nwah1 19 minutes ago
    Regular JPEG can also be compressed much more than it usually is:

    https://symbiogenesis.github.io/DotJpegli/

    However, video would matter so much more than images, to the overall internet, that images don't even matter by comparison.

    • i80and 7 minutes ago
      It's pretty frustrating that JPEG encoding generally got stuck with libjpeg-turbo.
  • thekid314 31 minutes ago
    Absolutely agree, for my photo portfolio website AVIF allows me to serve higher quality photos faster to potential clients.

    I’ll just drop my AVIF local support for Wordpress plugin here: https://github.com/ddegner/avif-local-support

  • flerchin 12 minutes ago
    Maybe a middle out compression is the way to go.
  • DivingForGold 1 day ago
    Seems about time we have ANOTHER round of serious investigations into collusion in the memory industry artificially driving up prices ...
  • ChrisArchitect 1 day ago
    Don't you mean JPEG XL?

    JPEG XL vs. AVIF for web use-cases

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50120224

    • anilgulecha 36 minutes ago
      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.

      • mort96 26 minutes ago
        You could make an argument that we should have AVIF everywhere on the web. But if you want a single image format to be everywhere, I think JPEG-XL is just better suited. AVIF has restrictions on resolutions and number of planes, and doesn't do lossless very well. It's competitive with AVIF on lossy image quality (even though yes, AVIF does seem like it tends to consistently have the advantage there).
        • anilgulecha 21 minutes ago
          Image formats goes in era, and there's no need for monoculture. But given we're talking exabytes of data, for this era, the author rightly articulates why AVIF should win. Should JPEGXL2 beat it in the future then it can take over for a decade. We seem to essentially have gone through like 4 formats so far: gif, jpg, PNG and webp. On vector side, SVG has no real competition - it's solid.
          • mort96 15 minutes ago
            The author is explicitly arguing for an AVIF monoculture. AVIF isn't an appropriate format for an image format monoculture, but JPEG-XL could be.

            "We should use AVIF for most web images" is a different statement which I have no problem with.