8 ms·

Hm, if you zoom in you can clearly see the difference between jxl and avif. The problem is rather the inconsistency of the results. For instance, at medium qua

Hm, if you zoom in you can clearly see the difference between jxl and avif. The problem is rather the inconsistency of the results. For instance, at medium quality Jxl seems to be better at preserving fine details and structure like the mark on the door, the traces on the lower part of the bridge, but avif appears to be better at preserving clarity of complex details, like far-away windows, cars, a tennis racket.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
To me, AVIF seems to be better for preserving sharp edges, JPEG XL seems better for preserving textures.
- FullstakBlogger 3y ago
  If you used nothing but nails to build various styles of beds, you wouldn't have the same experience sleeping on them as the originals; Unless, of course, the original was a bed of nails. Sharp edges are just one texture in an infinite range of textures, and AVIF looks like it constructs everything out of sharp edges in a way that's really obvious to the eye at all compression levels. With JPEG XL I can at least tell what's missing, or too artifacted to make out. With AVIF you have no idea what has been completely erased.
pornel 3y ago
Lossy codecs intentionally allow distortions that are too small to see with the naked eye (without zooming in). They're designed to operate at some "normal" viewing distance. If you zoom in, you defeat that technique. In case you actually wanted to compress images specifically for viewing when zoomed in, you should use different codecs, or higher quality, or configure codecs differently (e.g. in classic JPEG make quantization table preserve high frequences more). But for a benchmark that claims to compare codecs in general, you should only use normal viewing distance. Currently it's controversial whether the norm is still ~100dpi or whether it should be the "Retina"/2x resolution, but definitely it's not some zoomed-in 5dpi.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

To me, AVIF seems to be better for preserving sharp edges, JPEG XL seems better for preserving textures.

FullstakBlogger 3y ago
If you used nothing but nails to build various styles of beds, you wouldn't have the same experience sleeping on them as the originals; Unless, of course, the original was a bed of nails. Sharp edges are just one texture in an infinite range of textures, and AVIF looks like it constructs everything out of sharp edges in a way that's really obvious to the eye at all compression levels. With JPEG XL I can at least tell what's missing, or too artifacted to make out. With AVIF you have no idea what has been completely erased.

pornel 3y ago

Lossy codecs intentionally allow distortions that are too small to see with the naked eye (without zooming in). They're designed to operate at some "normal" viewing distance. If you zoom in, you defeat that technique. In case you actually wanted to compress images specifically for viewing when zoomed in, you should use different codecs, or higher quality, or configure codecs differently (e.g. in classic JPEG make quantization table preserve high frequences more). But for a benchmark that claims to compare codecs in general, you should only use normal viewing distance. Currently it's controversial whether the norm is still ~100dpi or whether it should be the "Retina"/2x resolution, but definitely it's not some zoomed-in 5dpi.