I just did some actual testing and extracted keyframes from an AV1 video without any further compression or extra settings, then I converted the output to a lossless jxl image which made it around 20x as large. For quality comparison I also compressed a lossy jxl file of the same size as the avif image, I don't think I need to mention that the quality difference is embarrassing.
extracted avif keyframe 60.1kb
https://files.catbox.moe/nzr60b.avif
converted lossless jxl 1.3mb
https://files.catbox.moe/lnivtj.jxl
converted lossy jxl 60.2kb
https://files.catbox.moe/6c4zib.jxl
extracted avif keyframe 56.6kb
https://files.catbox.moe/0loij4.avif
converted lossless jxl 1.3mb
https://files.catbox.moe/7z5gx1.jxl
converted lossy jxl 56.6kb
https://files.catbox.moe/1z03vs.jxl
extracted avif keyframe 74.6kb
https://files.catbox.moe/xjyuf1.avif
converted lossless jxl 1.4mb
https://files.catbox.moe/gm9pwx.jxl
converted lossy jxl 74.6kb
https://files.catbox.moe/p93uu5.jxl
jxlbros what is your response?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Cartoons are for children
anime is for children
Your test sounds moronic
Nobody cares, have a nice day
pic source?
not him but it appears to be from 100kanojo
CHRIST
is king
>I remuxed a lossy frame then compared it to a lossless compression of a lossy source
You're moronic.
Fpbp
No anon, I compared a lossy source to a lossy reencoded image of the same size. Fair conditions and a realistic scenario.
when you convert an image, ANY IMAGE to a lossy output, by its very nature, it LOSES INFORMATION.
if your source is already a lossy format, any further re-encodes of it is only going to make it look worse, no matter the output size, BECAUSE IT WILL LOSE EVEN MORE IMAGE DATA.
the ONLY way this makes sense is if you take your stupid fricking keyframe whatever is if you not only convert one JXL "output" of it at the targeted filesize and RE-ENCODE A SECOND FILE FROM YOUR KEYFRAME TO AVIF AGAIN.
This whole thing is just as stupid as taking a keyframe from a mjpeg video file and using that as a source to compare to webp by comparing the keyframe itself to one where you converted the keyframe to webp to declare that jpeg is superior forever and ever to webp.
Send me the jxl video so I can extract jxl screencaps from it and compare it to avif of the same size.
the ONLY advantage of AVIF is you can take a keyframe from it and save it as an image directly WITHOUT CONVERSION.
You could do that with many other codecs too. In theory, tell the browser to not show the video player controls and done.
Might have been done more often if it wasn't for patents and all the technical stuff with codecs and image format stuff that didn't work well on pure CPU and stuff like that.
>jpeg is superior forever and ever to webp
It is (for lossy). mozjpeg was already competitive and jpegli plainly beats it at reasonable fidelity levels, being even competitive with AVIF.
OK how do I take a high quality jxl screencap from a video? I'm really curious.
motherfricker IF YOUR VIDEO IS AV1, THE KEYFRAME IS ALREADY AN AVIF DATASTREAM, THERE IS NO "CONVERSION" OR "SCREENCAP"
The only way that is a fair comparison is if you take that keyframe REGARDLESS OF ITS CURRENT FORMAT and convert it to both JXL and AVIF (yes, that means re-encoding the AVIF file)
Anything else is just converting an MP3 file to AAC to say that the MP3 sounds better.
How is it avif's fault that jxl doesn't have a video codec? AV1 exists and is widely used. I can extract avif from it so why shouldn't I just do that? Why do I need to convert it to a meme format just because it's "unfair" according to some jxlshills?
Where do I get the raw of my favorite anime or movie from?
>Where do I get the raw of my favorite anime or movie from?
What do you think physical media is?
The image in the OP is literally using the original bluray file. It IS the fricking "raw" file according to you. And you are still complaining that it's unfair somehow.
when did bluray discs start using AV1 codec?
>"use the bluray"
>uses the bluray
>"nooo not like this"
you jxlgays are disgusting
AHA! SO THE BLURAY WASN'T ACTUALLY AV1, HUH?
The "bluray" you're referring to is a rip, transcoded to AV1.
You're literally comparing MP3 to AAC by transcoding the MP3 to AAC to make the AAC sound like shit.
Eat ass and die.
>then I converted the output to a lossless jxl image which made it around 20x as large.
>then I converted the output
So NOT the original Bluray file.
Nice samegayging, Daiz
>Where do I get the raw of my favorite anime or movie from?
From Blu-Ray remuxes. I used that to encode Evangelion scenes with AV1 synthetic grain.
It's not technically raw, but it's the closest you can get. Nothing beats the AVC originals, and only JPEG XL can effectively capture that losslessly in an image format.
the fun part is even if you'd use some "magical neutral video codec" then JXL would still shit itself compared to AVIF
sure, "magical"
https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00029663
Fact is, you're shit-eating disingenuous shill who's done nothing but argue in bad faith.
Shall we go and take screencaps from H264 videos just to show you that the results will barely change? What will be your next excuse then? Let me guess then suddenly it's yet again not a "fair" comparison because avif is optimized for videos and jxl for photos am I right? You dumb jxlshill will never stop coming up with new excuses just to defend your meme format.
>Shall we go and take screencaps from H264 videos
By all means, go right ahead, make your point, but do it right.
Not gonna waste my time to feed you dumb trolls even more. It's already very evident that avif has won. Jxlshills have not brought anything except fake benchmarks and false claims to the table so I take it you have surrendered.
>Large-scale benchmarks are fake, but my few fundamentally flawed tests are legit
Cute.
>made up scenarios vs realistic scenarios
you still haven't answered me how I get high quality jxl screencaps out of a video, I take it that it's just not possible without creating bloated images that are 20x as big as the avif
>Contrived ffmpeg keyframe conversion is realistic
>But a simple batch conversion of a collection is not
You're are actually moronic.
>you still haven't answered me how I get high quality jxl screencaps out of a video
What is there to explain. Use an intermediary format that doesn't degrade like PNG.
>high quality jxl screencaps out of a video
set the mpv screenshot options to whatever you want and press s
exactly the same procedure as avif
Still twice as large and shit quality, what next?
http://files.catbox.moe/gfuu9q.jxl
>all those 8x8 squares
This is a stomped on JPEG converted to JXL, homosexual
I put in screenshot-format=jxl and this was the result. So how do I get high quality jxl screencaps? Still not answered by anyone.
set screenshot-jxl-distance low and screenshot-jxl-effort high
7.3mb but good quality now, so this is the power of jxl?
http://files.catbox.moe/npg20g.jxl
Works on my PC.
https://files.catbox.moe/wslawh.jxl
so change the parameters to do what you want it to do
same with avif, which is actually prohibitively slow to encode at a decent quality to size ratio compared to lossy jxl and is useless for lossless
It's hilarious how defensive you get when called out for being sloppy. Learn the difference between invalidity and incorrectness, it will help you in your future.
The funny part is that the OP decided to "cheat" anyway. That's like racing against a turtle and deciding to tip him over to gain an advantage.
>get mp3
>encode to opus
>lol how is it mp3's fault opus isn't mp3?
That comparison doesn't make any sense and is way different
he's using a hyperspecific example where the picture already happens to be (effectively) in avif format, while i understand what he's trying to do, this is now how you compare codecs
yeah this framing is moronic, see
it's a stupid comparison for a usecase that doesn't actually make any sense and is being cherrypicked exclusively to troll people on IQfy
or, just as likely, OP didn't realize why this comparison was so moronic and then after-the-fact decided that this is something """people""" care about
damn I wanted to link that
For example you take the RAW video of a high quality camera like a RED/SONY or at least a higher end gopro filmed in conditions where there isn't too much noise and artifacting.
You downscale it a bit until the effect of noise is averaged out to a negligible level even when you go pixel peeping and what remains is essentially "clean" information captured by the sensor in the technical color space and resolution it's capable at.
Then you test with that data. Not only is the comparison more objective, this is where many cameras will be at now and more soon.
The shill argues that anything but "extracted keyframes" are useless to rationalize that AV1 is superior
Even in your super unrealistic scenario (nobody has the raws of anything) if I would compress a raw video to jxl it would still absolutely shit itself compared to the same-size avif from the same raw. Jxl is just worse at these kind of things no matter of the source.
>(nobody has the raws of anything)
Every Photoographer and Videographer has it. Even many smartphones and things like gopro - the respective app or for gopro firmware HAS access to the RAW data or close; and this then can decide to save it to JXL or AVIF from this more pristine source. It will eventually actually be used right on every average device.
Also every person who draws or genrates AI images or 3d renders. Or video game or app screenshots for example.
>Jxl is just worse at these kind of things no matter of the source.
JXL is usually better tho.
OK give me the raw of this video then I'll extract the jxl from it. Hey it saved me 20kb disk space! Never mind the 800gb I wasted to save the raw file. The absolute state of jxlshills.
Honestly, this just makes me side with JXL even more. AVIF screencaps look like blown out, anti-aliased pieces of trash. Nice going, Einstein.
>crispy clean keyframe extraction vs blurry image full of artefacts
>aCkShUaLlY zE aRtEfECtZ lOoK bEtTeR
The absolute state of jxlshills
I genuinely cant see a difference. Did OP paste the same picture twice?
There are tons of artefacts around the edges on the right one and the colors in large same-colored areas are fricked up. Right side is also a lot more blurry.
AVIF looks like there is some sort of dithering and color pallet reduction going. Almost like a better version of .gif compression.
>AVIF looks like there is some sort of dithering and color pallet reduction going. Almost like a better version of .gif compression.
It's literally the original bluray quality, why do you gays keep making up things?
I dont get it. It looks the same to me.
Here is your tree bark
AVIF looks like shit here. Why don't you convert a JXL source video to AVIF and we'll see who's whining then?
So one has retained grain while the other has not?
That's neat, but can it retain actual fricking scene detail?
>Compressing from an already heavily compressed source is bad
Stop the presses!
>He created yet ANOTHER thread
Tick tock.
https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/99167108/#99167108
Reminder that the OP is behind every single AVIF shill post and he's probably not getting paid by Google.
It's either Daiz or some other dork pretending to be Daiz because he or Google thinks IQfy likes Daiz and will listen to anything he says.
The shitposter took his trip code off after someone looked into an archive which he genuinely didn't expect anyone to do.
Now he pretends to be multiple people.
My theory is that Google is hoping that IQfy will adopt AVIF and the format takes off from there like how IQfy made WebM popular.
Kill all trip gays
>My theory is that Google is hoping that IQfy will adopt AVIF and the format takes off from there like how IQfy made WebM popular.
yeah google surely needs IQfy to make something popular
lol
lmao even
>how IQfy made WebM popular.
webm is not popular at all my dude, lmao
you turned yourself into an actual schizo from shilling for so long my dude daiz, lmao
that was my first post in the thread you schizo, holy shit
so defensive, daiz
wait... you are telling me pixdaiz was an h264 shill in 2014?
wtf?
>gets presented with hard facts
>tries to derail thread with schizoposting
Every time
>hard facts
>lies and cherrypicked pictures of anime
trip back up you homosexual
It's literally random pictures from an anime, how exactly did I cherrypick them? The results will be similar for every anime, in fact similar for almost all av1 encoded videos.
>jxlgays get confronted with actual data from real scenarios
>they keep denying avif supremacy and send fake statistics yet again
why am I not surprised?
jxlgays are just trolling at this point
>Charts are fake unless they come from Google's own decoding speed benchmark
I can't breathe in all these copium fumes.
All benchmarks are fake and unrealistic. OP presented you with hard facts, are you just good pretend they don't exist now?
Plenty where they came from.
https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/#kopenhagen&avif=l&jxl=l
>all images are the same size +/-5%
>all photographs
>not a single vector graphic, which is the vast majority of images on the internet
wow such realistic benchmarks, for a hobby photographer
>which is the vast majority of images on the internet
[citation needed]
Even if that's true, how many of those are lossless PNG's?
>>all images are the same size +/-5%
Are you daft? That's what controlling for size does.
av1 keyframes are already avif images, you can't compare avif to jxl when your ground truth is avif. your methodology is almost bad enough to get published.
>av1 keyframes are already avif images, you can't compare avif to jxl when your ground truth is avif.
Yes and? Most videos will be av1 in some years and screenshots from videos are a large amount of all images on the internet. This gives avif a huge advantage over jxl because there are already infinite avifs encoded into videos.
Let's talk about that business of keyframes' exporting.
You can use FFmpeg to export AV1 keyframes as AVIF images because their formats are (almost) the same.
However, you cannot use FFmpeg to export HEVC (H.265) keyframes as HEIC images despite their formats being (almost) the same.
Additionally, you cannot use FFmpeg to export VP8 keyframes as WebP images despite their formats being (almost) the same.
Why is that?
it's because nobody cares about keyframe extraction apart from pixDAIZ
mkvtoolnix or some other software can extract heic from hevc, idk about vp8/webp
pixDaiz is either Daiz himself pretending to be a fanboy of himself or some other shill pretending to be Daiz because they think IQfy likes Daiz and will do anything Daiz says
>they think IQfy likes Daiz
...how would one reach such conclusion?
>Why is that?
AVERROR_PATCHWELCOME
issue closed wontfix
>I just did some actual testing and extracted keyframes from an AV1 video without any further compression or extra settings, then I converted the output to a lossless jxl image which made it around 20x as large.
that's an unfair and nonsensical comparison
i bet you also use the avif video as the source for your lossy jxl encodes
i don't have a particular preference either way, but this isn't useful information
>that's an unfair and nonsensical comparison
It's a realistic scenario. Images are taken from videos all the time. Just because jxl doesn't have a video format doesn't make it unfair.
taking pictures of keyframes has limited practical use, keyframes make up a small fraction of the total frames in a video, so the chances the frame you want to save is a keyframe is pretty low
>Extraxting a keyframe in its original format is realistic
Pure delusion. That's one frame every fifth second. Nobody can realistically rely on that when they can just right click and save as a generic image on every frame.
Yeah taking non-keyframe avifs from a video is literally IMPOSSIBLE. I swear you jxlgays are so dumb.
>Ah yes, let us queue up a whole group of frames just to display a simgle static image. Genius! Silly peasants would not umderstand
The absolute mental state of AVIF sycophants. Fricking Christ almighty.
>sycophants
>s
No, you illiterate newbie. It's literally one guy called Daiz who turned himself into a schizo from shilling for over a decade by "pretending" to be a moron.
Non-keyframes still use the same algorithms, it's trivial to extract them and you barely lose and quality. Are you just pretending to be moronic? Do you even know how any of this works? It's really no rocket science.
>Do you even know how any of this works
Do YOU? Interframe compression works completely differently. It cannot just magically turn an estimated frame into an autonomous one without basically starting over.
Go ahead and tell me how big a superblock is without looking it up.
Here's some of the dumb shit said by Daiz today
>IQfy didn't make WebM/h264 popular
>Someone downloading a YouTube video made WebM popular
>Everyone looks at technical details on YouTube
>Programs that supported WebM existed before IQfy added WebM
>No one cares about photographs
>AVIF is superior to JXL because it is a few bits smaller than JXL for one cartoon picture
>No one except for IQfy cares about WebM because mp4 exists
>WebM is shit
>WebM is actually good because it makes YouTube more money, that's why AVIF will be good too
>Confusing a container with a codec
moron
>IQfy didn't make WebM/h264 popular
this one doesn't make sense at all, why would IQfy have made webm popular? webm isn't a popular format outside of end-delivery on streaming platforms, and what the frick does h264 have to do with IQfy? IQfy never supported h264
>Programs that supported WebM existed before IQfy added WebM
...yes they did, what's wrong with this? are you implying IQfy's support of webm is what made media players capable of reading such format?
daiz is a moron don't get me wrong, but most of what you are saying here is just nonsense
>No one except for IQfy cares about WebM because mp4 exists
...yes that's also correct, have you ever seen the average person store webm files on their computer? maybe mkv, but fricking webm? no.
Why do you we can't tell it's you when you type like a mentally ill newbie (which you hate) to change your posting style and talk shit about yourself, daiz
>Why do you we
>when you type like a mentally ill
the ironys
>can't see anon forgot to add a word
>spergs out
Classic daiz moment
>coping with moronation
classic "you are daiz" Black person
AVIF SUCKS ASS JXL FOR THE WIN (HARDWARE ACCELERATION NOT REQUIRED) I'M NOT FRICKING DAIZ KYS
>(HARDWARE ACCELERATION NOT REQUIRED)
Correct, yes.
This lie is probably what will end up killing jpeg xl for good.
>No one cares about photographs
>AVIF is superior to JXL because it is a few bits smaller than JXL for one cartoon picture
>No one except for IQfy cares about WebM because mp4 exists
I said that and I'm not whoever you think I am. Take your meds and stop derailing this thread. And yes webm is indeed shit if it doesn't use av1.
> Programs that supported WebM existed before IQfy added WebM
Okay, this is a bit crazy.
Of course they existed and IQfy's support of WebM consisted of a mere wrapper around an existing decoder (to checl the format and to grab the first frame for a thumbnail).
There's no video engineers in IQfy's team to write their own support from the scratch.
It's not crazy
You're just dumb or fricking lying. There were no video editors that supported WebM until IQfy added it
So “no programs” suddenly “no video editors” now?
That's moving the goalpost, that's what it is.
bros i took a lossy -d 10 jxl and converted it losslessly to avif at the fastest encode speed and its way bigger now
pixy promised me that avif was better i'm literally shaking and crying right now
>bros i took a lossy -d 10 jxl and converted it losslessly to avif at the fastest encode speed and its way bigger now
Then explain how the same-sized jxl has so much worse quality.
You can easily extract non-keyframe images as avif and the file size will only be slightly bigger.
>You can easily extract non-keyframe images as avif and the file size will only be slightly bigger.
can avif hold an iframe and multiple p/b frames? because that would change things
You can put a full AV1 codestream into an "animated" AVIF without changing it at all. This is not necessarily a good thing. I don't really know if you can do it without frame delay either and I'm not interested in looking it up because doing that to create "screenshots" would be horrible.
My schizo theory is that pixDAIZ is secretly staunchly anti-AVIF and pro-JXL. Mostly because of the sheer amount of stupid garbage he says, and how persistent he is in repeating it after he gets an explanation of how stupid it is.
It's just hard to believe that someone would spend so much time and energy showing people how bad AVIF is. There's no way that someone doing that is actually pro-AVIF. The level of stupidity required is just not reasonable.
You're being too generous by suggesting he's doing black propaganda
But he's serious about making AVIF the new popular format
>black propaganda
I learned a new term today. Thanks.
But really, this chucklefrick just made a thread to suggest that a lossy-to-lossless conversion resulting in a larger file size is proof that the latter format is inferior. That is so incomprehensibly stupid that I could explain it to my tech-illiterate grandma in less than five minutes.
There is no way it can be anything but an attempt to discredit the intelligence of AVIF proponents.
>That is so incomprehensibly stupid that I could explain it to my tech-illiterate grandma in less than five minutes.
Yet it's the jxlgays always claiming how superior their lossless shit is. Creating images from videos is a common and OP has proven that avif is much superior here. Even using the same compression jxl just shits itself.
What's up with the daiz gays all of a sudden, what the frick did he do?
>daiz gays
??? where
he is literally hated by everyone here
Bullshit, you keep talking about this Black person homosexual too much like a bunch of fangirls.
Nobody gives a shit about some namegay it's literally one person schizoposting and derailing every thread about image formats. I don't even know who the frick this daiz is I just want to shill avif because it's better for anime pictures.
Daiz claims to be ethical and lawful while selling rape porn, bootstrapping himself off of copyright infringement and trying to stop others from doing the same thing so that he can have a monopoly on Japanese porn outside of Japan
Good luck defending this without being an edgy hypocrite
You WILL only use the internet as Google dictates.
You WILL only use repurposed keyframes.
You WILL NOT use problematic formats such as JPEG-XL.
There are three criteria any new format must meet:
1) Does your format have broken or incomplete hardware acceleration on the latest mobile devices?
2) How do keyframes from AV1-encoded anime compare to recompressed versions in other formats?
3) Do the developers of WebP and AVIF on the chromium team think you should be allowed to use it?
There are zero other metrics or features to be considered. If you disagree, it's because you're a pedophile that wants to hide shit in your additional channels and bit-depth. Anyone who enables the flags for experimental "alternative" formats will be reported via telemetry to the proper authorities.
>Does your format have broken or incomplete hardware acceleration on the latest mobile devices?
there isn't a single image format that allows hardware acceleration right now
and that's mostly because it's not required, image codecs are already fast enough in software
quit with this hw decoding bullshit already pixxydaizzy please
>jxlsisters can't even comprehend the most blatant sarcasm from their kind
this is why avif will win
>I was just pretending to be moronic!!!
alright
how genuinely autistic would you have to be to think this post is a pro-avif post
sometimes you spergs amaze even me
see
I don't get why there isn't a huge concern for the lack of hardware acceleration regarding jpeg xl. All low end dual-core devices are going to need it like real bad.
??? your graphs literally prove that it's barely any slower than other image formats, even compared to jpeg it's like only 20% slower to decode
literally a non issue
EVEN IF by some miracle jpeg xl decodes in under a second on dual-core devices (ie the river of sub-$100 chromebooks/tablets/phones for poorgays) it's going to rape battery life.
That's the whole appeal of hardware acceleration, better battery life.
maybe by some miracle you'll learn to read what you are replying to
how does 20% slower decode rape battery life or require a miracle to decode at all???
if a Chromebook can decode jpegs very quickly, how is an image format that takes 20% more processing power an issue?
>dude just trust me it's going to be a big deal, that's why the only place you ever hear people talking about muh hw acceleration on 2d raster images is on IQfy's daily avif vs jxl threads no i'm not the tripgay you can't prove that in a court of law
>I don't get why there isn't a huge concern for the lack of hardware acceleration regarding jpeg xl.
Because most of the people actively working on new image formats, from AVIF to JPEG-XL, aren't as moronic as IQfy shitposters.
>All low end dual-core devices are going to need it like real bad.
No, they won't.
>very poorly encoded webm
yup, it's him
Funny how OP literally proved all you jxlshills wrong but all you do is keep talking about one namegay and google. It's almost like you have no other way left now that it's proven that avif is technologically superior, you are not even trying to defend your pathetic format. Come let's talk about daiz one more time that will surely make jxl better.
>hey I took a keyframe from anime and recompressed it in your format, feeling btfo yet?
>n-no, don't ask about other, much more common types of images or direct comparisons that's anti-semetic
>nobody cares about progressive decode or software decode performance or bit depth or max resolution or number of channels or generation loss resistance or lossless, reversible conversion from far-and-away the most common image formats that's BLOAT that's why the minimal JXL header is 24 times smaller than the minimal AVIF header
see
>no argument
That's what we thought.
So how do I get a lossless jxl from an anime video? Tell me. Because I'm taking screencaps all the time and I don't want to fill up my hard drives with oversized garbage. How does jxl solve my use case?
The vast majority of content isn't AV1-encoded and won't be for quite some time, and here's a wild idea for you to consider: nobody gives a frick about your niche usecase in comparison to all of the other, much more common usecases, which is why so much time money and effort has already gone into JXL support from software that isn't literally maintained by people listed as co-authors of competing image formats.
How many threads are we going to have where the same moron goes "wow, did you know if I take the keyframe from an image format and recompress it again then it has a worse quality at the same bitrate???" and then pretends like he's a totally new and unique poster despite repeatedly making the same inane arguments that nobody else on the internet makes?
I know that IQfy is full of NEET nocoder morons but even by those standards the discrepancy between people in the industry that actually do things and anonymous shitposters is incredible to behold.
>The vast majority of content isn't AV1-encoded
It is actually which makes the rest of your post void
>nobody cares about progressive decode or software decode performance or bit depth or max resolution or number of channels or generation loss resistance or lossless, reversible conversion from far-and-away the most common image formats
Yes indeed nobody cares about all this shit. Nobody except some autistic photographers will ever use any of this, especially not on the internet. And even for autistic photographers there are probably even better formats to use. Jxl isn't even good at what it's supposed to be better than avif. It's slightly better for lossless but it conpletely shits the bed in every other area. Avif is the superior format for the internet and it's not even close.
There is is, all of these discussions come down to outright unsourced lies on behalf of AVIF once it's clear that the "pictures of anime" argument isn't actually convincing.
>ummmm yeah actually nobody cares, source: me. it's also just worse in all those cases, just trust me okay? everyone wants the best internet format: AVIF
Yeah, when I think "formats for the internet" I think people people want to encode, store and deliver two copies of every image (where the original image is larger on average even on its own). That's why all those companies like Cloudinary, Shopify, Facebook, flickr, etc. are pushing JXL adoption: because of how bad it is at delivering content on the internet. It's a practical joke they're playing on the anime NEETs of the world.
is right, this is like the morons that were calling h264 DoA when it first released because they are incapable of understanding the linear progression of time.
Why the frick are you here ESL
>avif shill can't refute anything
>randomly pick a buzzword that doesn't apply because he feels like he has to reply
excellent contribution fellow white man, you sure have convinced us
>randomly pick a buzzword that doesn't apply because he feels like he has to reply
Pressing enter after every word is ESL, moron
AV1 is good for video.
JXL is good for images.
>JXL is good for images
jxl is slightly better for large lossless photos
it's worse for vector graphics
it's worse for lossy images
it's worse for small images
it's worse for screencaps
it's worse for anything related to anime
yeah I'm totally sure the web runs on large lossless photos
>a video-derived format being good at anything as opposed to a real, true image format
Just leave.
Over 90% of images on the internet are vector graphics and screencaps.
Source: Dude trust me
Are you browsing a different internet than me?
>The internet only consists of the things i browse
Lacking theory of mind is a sign of autism.
>dude trust me and not the benchmarks saying otherwise I'm totally a real person AVIF is better at basically everything
this
What benchmarks when OPs test makes it obvious how garbage jxl is in real life scenarios?
see
>the most common use of 2d images is OBVIOUSLY screengrabs of video, it's wasteful to not use the keyframes!
>check av1 video downloaded from yt, 10 seconds between keyframes
>check av1 video encoded via handbrake, 10 seconds between keyframes
>check av1 anime, 10 seconds between keyframes
holy shit imagine this being the entire basis for your pro-AVIF argument, talk about grasping at straws.
>online shop hosting pictures of their products
>hmmmm do I want to have a single 500KB file, or do I want to have a 575KB file and then another 7KB file and then maybe another 1KB file depending on how many thumbnail variations I want
such convenience!
>you can't create non-keyframe screencaps from a video
what a moronic take, even non-keyframe screencaps are better in avif than in jxl. Keyframes just happen to be the optimal condition that doesn't mean that non-keyframes don't work.
It's not a moronic take, you just have the most niche and flimsy argument I have ever fricking seen and can't convince anyone to give a shit about "muh screengrabs of anime".
That's the point of that comment, yes. JXL has excellent progressive decode that can deliver a full-image preview at 15-20% of the total size of the file, and can be encoded to prioritize specific details like faces or foreground objects. AVIF cannot do this at all and you must have separate copies for every single thumbnail size you want in addition to the full-sized image, which is 10-15% larger than JXL for photographic pictures.
Holy shit you are impossibly stupid. Why even both replying at this point? You might as well just start spamming basedjaks at this point if your argument against an ACTUALLY useful feature that people who matter care about is "ummmm... actually it's bloat to have features that lessen the amount of time spent encoding, the space used for storing, and the bandwidth for delivering".
>you just have the most niche and flimsy argument I have ever fricking seen and can't convince anyone to give a shit about "muh screengrabs of anime"
Oh yes anime images, the absolute niche scenario. Are we using a different website? 90% of IQfy is anime screencaps and memes created from it. You are absolutely moronic.
This has to be satire. There's no other explanation.
i don't think you're being paid to shill for avif but I do think that would be dramatically less embarrassing than the alternative, which is being this sincerely dumb and wanting to share it with the rest of us
Avif is superior for anime images and that's why I'll shill it. I couldn't give less shits about some autistic hobby photographs and online shops using some meme format just to save 5kb bandwidth. Are we trying to save big corpo some bucks now or what?
>Avif is superior for anime images
Prove it.
>Prove it.
Okay, so you're a fundamentally unserious person. That was always clear but it's good that you're admitting it.
New image/video/audio codecs are always developed, pushed, adopted, and maintained by large corporations and moneyed interests. Nobody gives two shits about the usecases and opinions of some NEET who only cares about his chinese cartoons and hentai, nor should they, especially when they're as technologically illiterate as you.
See post above you. I don't see any laws against using AV1 for non-anime videos anywhere.
>online shop hosting pictures of their products
Usually, these things want to have high-fidelity photographs that showcase their articles well, not minimum-quality blurs. If implemented properly, they could even utilize JXL's progressive decode to quickly expand a thumbnail into a full-size image.
>hmmmm do I want to have a single 500KB file, or do I want to have a 575KB file and then another 7KB file and then maybe another 1KB file depending on how many thumbnail variations I want
It's exactly you jxlgays that push for this extra bloat. The internet will inevitable use avif for everything. Jxl would just become the bloat on top of it and that's why it must be prevented.
Let's assume the WORST possible case scenario: ALL internet AV1 video exclusively uses 10 second keyframe intervals and only 1 of those images is worth anything.
That means 1 good image per minute of video or 60 good images per hour of video. That's still 120 good images for a typical 2 hour movie. Even more for anime which typical go on forever sometimes (see one piece).
Anyway the point is every single time someone encodes something to AV1, the number of AVIF images goes up. Encoding these AVIF images to jpeg xl would be the most moronic thing you could possibly do because you'll either wind up with huge amount of bloat or frick up the image quality.
Your "WORST possible case scenario" somehow claims that one *specific* frame out of every bunch of 1440 is a good screenshot. That's quite silly, considering that an anime episode has like 10-50 or so screenshots posted per thread. The chance of any of these falling specifically on a keyframe by accident is miniscule.
>taking screencaps of non-keyframe scenes is impossible
Why do you dumb jxlgay keep repeating yourself? It's like the 5th time in this thread alone. Are you perhaps a little braindead?
not them but what can do it? ffmpeg doesn't seem to be able to
We're going to end up in a lose-lose situation if jpeg xl gets adopted. Either those avif images extracted from av1 video become bloat or the quality suffers.
What I'm trying to say is we already more AVIF images than jpeg xl images right now and converting those to jpeg xl is kind of REALLY fricking moronic.
Practically speaking jpeg-xl will basically be webp 2.0, we'll never leave the lossy-to-lossy hell.
>Practically speaking jpeg-xl will basically be webp 2.0, we'll never leave the lossy-to-lossy hell.
This is exactly what jxlgays want. They can't cope with their lose so now they want everyone to suffer. Can't wait for jxl to be adapted and then not being able to use it anywhere and needing to convert it to avif. But hey at least I saved 20kb disk space :*~~
>THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO
That's not the worse possible scenario. That's the actual, average scenario. Right now. In reality. You disingenuous frick.
>1 good image per minute of video
Nobody other than you, a random internet weeb making up inane hypotheticals, takes an image of video based on ripping out keyframes. They take a screengrab of the specific frame that they care about. What in the FRICK are you doing where you're just constantly dumping random keyframes from anime and hoping one of them just happens to be good enough to... what, save for jacking off to later? Shitposting on IQfy?
Not wasting any more time on this since you've already clearly just given up on any pretense other than "the only thing that matters is marginal savings on my anime screengrabs". Seek mental help.
>hey you have to use this already old af image format with very little support
>it's called avif, don't ask what the V stands for
>image format with very little support
https://caniuse.com/avif
92%, now look up jxl
>yeah the format with an almost 4 year headstart that's primarily pushed by the company with de facto control over the internet browser market has better browser support right now, impressed yet?
You said little support and I proved you wrong, what's the issue now?
i should have said "little use" which is completely correct. at the end of the day, all of these conversations are just dancing around the fact that jxl is a way newer format and has been gaining support at a much faster rate than avif did.
Avif is already used on almost every wiki and booru if you set up your browser correctly. I have yet to encounter a single jxl image in the wild, not that it would matter since my browser won't display it anyway.
>wiki and booru
hahahahahahahahahahaha
i always assumed all avif shills were just anime coomers but it's good to have it confirmed
>I have yet to encounter a single jxl image in the wild
no shit moron, maybe it's because the company with control over ~70%+ of the browser market refuses to support it
>why don't websites use the format that we refuse to allow people to view? checkmate ATHEISTS
Boorus don't approve of AVIF because it's an inferior format that literally rapes the quality to the point anyone can count the number of pixels with one hand.
Wby are you lying, Daiz?
>I have yet to encounter a single jxl image in the wild, not that it would matter since my browser won't display it anyway.
Do you get paid by Google at all? Do you hope that they'll hire you as a managsr for their shill department If you suck their dick real good?
>even other parts of Google are working on JXL support
>the guy who removed JXL from chromium is the co-author and primary contributor to libwebp
Proof that complete Windows support is in-development also dropped like a month ago. Tick tock morons, the only thing holding you up is one salty senior software sperg at Google.
Every one of these threads is just one gay telling everyone that actually everyone across the tech industry hates JXL because it's a slightly smaller improvement at shrinking their hentai collection (that they exclusively view on their phone) when literally every single sign is that they're wrong.
It's like watching the USSR brag about their lead in the space race while it's rapidly diminishing before our eyes, but instead of "exploring the universe" it's "how many of the images under the e-girlcon tag on gelbooru are encoded in a specific image format".
Can you ESLs jump off a bridge
Your bot is malfunctioning, dipshit.
Samegayging phoneposting ESL
>two identically-formatted posts making the same nonsense comment two minutes apart
>two identically-formatted posts making the same nonsense comment two minutes apart
lmao you're not even trying
Sorry, I'm a lowly phoneposter so I can't really keep up with popular threads like these but I just want to add that you're all overestimating those dual-core electronics. Jpeg xl is going to be a battery draining problem on those things.
Unless dual-core trash gets banned (not really a bad idea IMHO) you NEED hardware acceleration.
>poorgay phoneposter is the one guy that's constantly spamming IQfy with posts about how vitally important hardware accelerating his jaypegs is
good lord that's funny
I notice that there was a substantial increase in these avif shill threads since 4ch removed the IP counter.
Why is that?
really makes you think
moronic Black person
thats not how it works
you can't just compress lossy to lossy or lossy to lossless
god you are so fricking moronic
I think what OP is pointing out is that avif images have already been generated once an av1 video is created.
More av1 video = exponential increase in avif images.
but that would be an even more moronic point to make
Only because you need to use the CLI to get them. Apparently being a script kiddie in today's world means you have a very high IQ.
Ok I can concede that if I am viewing an AV1 video I might want to make AVIF screenshots, but that's a very niche use, for all the other image usecases I prefer JXL.
Avif is also better for anime and vector graphics
No what I'm saying is the # of AVIF images INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY as the number of AV1 videos goes up.
Typical keyframe intervals on internet AV1 video are 2-5 seconds. This results in 12-30 AVIF images per minute with at least a few of them worth something.
>muh keyframes
A video is not an image and never will be, stop with this braindamage.
Opinions on https://tools.suckless.org/farbfeld/
You have worms in your brain it seems. NOBODY has to encode images anymore.
They're LITERALLY right there in AV1 video files. All you have to do is extract them.
You have braindamage, images are ONE THING, videos are ANOTHER THING, there will NEVER be a format that is optimal for both images and videos, never.
What do you think what a video is? Some magical being?
>No what I'm saying is the # of AVIF images INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY as the number of AV1 videos goes up.
Considering your all-caps emphasis, are you implying that every AV1 video doubles the amount of AVIF images? In this case, we should already have ludicrously more of them than there are atoms in the universe.
>convert lossy avif to lossy jxl of the exact same size
>it completely shits itself quality-wise
>hurr durr it's not comparable
and why would it not be comparable? taking screencaps from videos is common. it's not avif's fault that jxl doesn't have a video format.
Hey guys when I re-encode my MP3 files as OGG it sounds slightly worse. What gives?
Go ahead and extract keyframes from this video to BTFO JXL. I dare you
extracted avif 139kb
lossless jxl 299kb
What next?
>139kb
>299kb
Skill issue.
>No video with supported format and MIME type found
yikes
Just give up on lossy compression formats already
stop ruining media for everyone
Everything you use is already lossy. What do you think how big a raw, uncompressed movie is? Some artists give out their raw files and they are multiple gigabytes for a single image. Don't fool yourself with "lossless".
lossless != uncompressed, morono
mentally ill pixelphile thread
How do you gays not see that the AVIF shill is Daiz himself or one of his cronies trying to get people to like him
The reason he hates JXL is because it will disincentive people from using his paywall online reader for cartoon porn
I don't think OP is diaz, because his argument is slightly different and even more stupid than his usual posts. Maybe I'm wrong though.
>every AVIF vs. JXL is overwhelmingly pro-JXL and anti-jewgle
>single tripgay repeating the same arguments over and over while everyone yells at him
>jannies take away IP counter
>some samegayging tranime poster starts spamming every thread with projection about lack of arguments and samegayging
Man this thread is just chock-full of completely organic and genuine comments being made in good faith. Talk about fricking bot posts and shills, the Chromium troony must be panicking.
Every one of these threads I've ever come into has exactly one (1) moron making terrible arguments and completely ignoring every single counter argument while repeatedly saying "wow notice nobody can deboonk me". What compels someone to embarrass themselves like this on a near-daily basis?
>overwhelmingly pro-JXL
Literally one guy who keeps spamming his useless benchmarks and daizspam. You can even clearly see when he comes online and the quality of posts drop.
The only people dumb enough to fall for your horseshit are people who have literally never entered one of these threads before (and we've had like a hundred by this point).
Surprise surprise, people on IQfy don't like people shilling on behalf of Google. Now frick off back to IQfy or r/anime or whatever shithole you crawled out of.
Do IQfytards really want AVIF? I looked at their board and they seemingly only post fan-made images.
>months and months of samegayging
>n-no you! you're the samegay!
removing the IP counter was a mistake and you're the proof
I'm the OP of this thread and I didn't even know what avif is 2 weeks ago. I don't even know who this fricking namegay is that you keep bringing up and spamming this thread with. Take your fricking meds.
>I didn't even know what avif is 2 weeks ago.
We noticed.
>What compels someone to embarrass themselves like this on a near-daily basis?
Also applies to everyone constantly replying to reposts of the same nonsense, knowing that their posts will be ignored.
>I don't think OP is diaz, because his argument is slightly different
That's called samegayging, you dumb tourist
Is it?
Oh great the daizschizo is back to shit up yet another thread while bringing no arguments to the table. This will surely make people love jxl.
Why are these threads so hostile? What brings out these accusations and aggression? None of you better be complaining about the quality of the board while posting like this.
>avifbros posting proof after proof how much better avif is in real scenarios
>jxlschizos shitting up the thread with spam, insults and posts about some namegay, not contributing anything to the actual topic
yeah I really wonder why nobody likes jxl
From the perspective of a fence sitter neither of these formats are perfect, each have pros and cons. The problem is figuring out exactly which one benefits the internet more long term. While jpeg xl does well with noise directly, avif can remove it for better compression, and then add it back on later.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comments/o7s8hk/high_quality_encoding_of_avif_images_using/?rdt=59893
Sorry for reddit link but it seems like those gays are smarter than everyone in this thread combined. Not a single one of you have mentioned the noise synthesis which is the REAL great divider of JPEG XL vs AVIF.
JXL has noise synthesis (e.g. cjxl --photon_noise_iso), but I don't think that the encoder has an option to automatically denoise images.
>Sorry for reddit link b
This isn't pre-2010 IQfy. Vast majority of users on here are Reddit refugees or heavily influenced by the Reddit refugees.
You can tell by how they say NTA or normie, or write their posts incoherently by either putting all of the text in one line or pressing enter after every word.
apologies on behalf of anime, morons like OP don't represent us, no idea how he got out of his cage
No one watches animes tho
trade 1 pixel errors that u cant even see without zooming 20x for 100x speed.
wow chuds he really got us there.
You clearly see the artefacts and fricked up colors even on 100%. The images are there in the OP, why don't you take a look yourself?
Jxl is slower than avif so your comment doesn't make any sense
https://avif.io/blog/comparisons/avif-vs-jpegxl/
blow your brains out you lying homosexual, even the AVIF devs themselves know you're full of shit
>"JPEG XL is faster across the board with single-core encode and decode speeds and is more parallelizable than AVIF."
>but muh hw acceleration
not supported by most hardware, not supported by most software, this argument is moronic enough before you even consider that nobody is benefiting from this supposed magical AVIF hardware acceleration in reality
You don't need to be so hostile, anon.
Considering the OP started his thread based on a moronic concept and the only other arguments he can offer up are based on demonstrably false lies, yes I do.
Why does every thread about new image codecs have a single pro-AVIF sperg hyperfixating on one very specific thing and ignoring any other argument while chanting "jaypeg excel shills cannot refute my arguments" as people repeatedly refute his arguments
Where do I get that job
Why would you save those pictures? it's just some lines and flat colours. Abstract art gay?
are you TRANSCODING FROM ONE LOSSY IMAGE INTO ANOTHER, then comparing the LOSSY IMAGE TO ITS SOURCE?
motherfricker, you're too stupid to internet.
This fricking guy is the Hector of IQfy
It's comparing 2 lossy images of the exact same size why are you all so illiterate?
Are you being willfully thick?
THE JPEG-XL OUTPUT IS A LOSSY CONVERSION OF A LOSSY CONVERSION. You're INTENTIONALLY dropping more information from the JXL file.
That's like converting CD/FLAC to MP3 then converting the MP3 to AAC to prove that the MP3 sounds better.
At this point saying you're only pretending to be moronic doesn't actually make you not moronic.
One algorithm: I dropped a few glass bottles of a mountain. One had a pretty nice set of many small shards. I called it a day when that happened.
The other algorithm: Try to male this fricking glass bottle shatter in the most closely exactly same way from the same height somewhere on some mountain.
These are not the same problem. Try lossless compression with both from a regular set of photos or drawn artworks like random waifus that were posted on IQfy or *booru without the purpose to make one or the other algorithm win. Or compress to lossless images from your raw 48MP+ MILC photo sensor .
Holy fricking shit modern IQfy is impossibly stupid.
Don't bother with this moron. He barely understands what he's talking about and he's not doing it in good faith.
>Testing compression on dogshit anime or cartoon frames
Use actual real life video or photo
The shill claims those aren't used by anyone
In court, moronic people get off easily. He's by no means moronic
You homies sure do get spicy over some formats or whatever.
The Alliance of Media shill constantly rambling and crying about JXL just makes me like it more. I wish they kept using a trip so I could filter them.
I hope people in this thread understand that this entire argument of more avif videos mean more av1 images relies on the fact that video players and web ones change the internal screenshoot tool to encode on av1 and not just in jpg/png? You might get only chrome doing this for youtube, in minimum 5 years, but software players won't. If their defaults ever changed, jxl would be much more likely as devs for these are autist and jxl is more inline with their desires and uses than av1.
The only morons here are the ones who insist on either format. They both fulfill their separate roles.
AVIF is good at delivering ephemeral slop for the masses that view more pictures in their day than there are seconds.
JXL is good at facilitating the enjoyment of photo connoisseurs awing every speck on a bird's feather.
Both cases are very relevant. Wikipedia still hosts many JPEG's that are too good for WebPiss to handle.
There is no war. Only grifters with their personal agendas.
JXL lossy shits on AVF lossy too, reddit typer
Wrong. Jxl will be the new webp. The guys handshaking should be avif and svg, the guy in green should be jxl.
WebP and AVIF both have Google encoder roots.
WebP and AVIF are both derived from video codecs.
WebP and AVIF both have strict limitations on various image parameters.
WebP and AVIF are both not supersets of JPEG.
Tell me what WebP 2.0 is again.
webp is hated because it doesn't have any software support (just like jxl) not because it's a video codec or created by the bogeyman
Every major browser has supported it for years. It works just fine on Windows too. Your post is fricking moronic.
Your picture is wrong: WebP will coexist with both AVIF and JXL because some screenshots of avatars and text (especially ClearType text) can have much better lossless compression in WebP.
(An example of one such screenshot is attached here.)
That's statistically not the case.
Then the sample for the statistics is wrong.
Almost in every case (even in the case of the screenshot of your own words, attached here) WebP can compress ClearType text better than the maximum effort (“cjxl --allow_expert_options --effort=11 --brotli_effort=11 -d 0 -I 100 -E 3”) of the JXL encoder.
Fun fact: the shill aka Daiz reported his "legal merchandise" as CSAM to try and destroy a hosting provider distributing his content against his will.
If you thought his blatant astroturfing is shameless, then you are really going to be surprised at the other dodgy shit he does
who cares and what does that have to do with the topic?
you cared enough to reply and it sure is a mystery why people are talking about you in your own topic about yourself
>mindbreaks google and some random IQfy schizo
>random
The only schizo in this thread is that one dude who keeps talking about that namegay and not contributing anything to the actual topic. He got mindbroken so hard that he keeps talking about him months later.
>n-no u
>im not a samegay
Cry more, Daiz
homie who the frick is diaz
Give it up already gay.
Genuine question, why do people care about this? I'll just go with whatever standard is more widely adopted in the end. Same with video formats. There is literally no reason to use "cutting edge" bullshit and break compatibility for a 0.1% increase in quality.
>why do people care about this
Because I don't want webp 2.0 and go through the hassle of needing to convert everything in the next 20 years. This is literally what jxlgays want.
Yeah webp is fricking gay, I don't see anything wrong with good ol jpeg and png. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
But that makes no sense. It won't happen with jxl if your image viewers and other software can open it.
WebP's problem for years was that only browsers supported it and most people, particularly wingays, couldn't view them in their image viewer. JXL has the opposite problem if anything.
Jxl does not work in any of my programs either. Avif at least works in the ones I need.
werks in nsxiv
I can't think of an image viewer I've ever used that doesn't have JXL support other than maybe the default Windows one, which has support coming. Stop using shit software.
See
>you stupid fricking newbie, you're replying to Daiz who thinks people only use Google products
Didn't ask.
Using ristretto
I'm gonna filter you now it's honestly just annoying keep seeing the same mindbroken dude spamming the same shit over and over again, you dedicated your entire existence to a namegay please seek help
That's funny because if you did that you wouldn't see your own posts if you put your trip code back on
I had ristretto working with even animated JXL years ago, it just needs the usual gdk-pixbuf dependencies. On Arch, having libjxl installed (likely to be the default, since it's a dependency of ffmpeg among other programs) is enough to make it work.
I have libjxl installed and it still gives me an error but I honestly don't care enough to fix it because nobody uses jxl anyway.
Not quite what I had in mind but looks interesting.
you stupid fricking newbie, you're replying to Daiz who thinks people only use Google products
I'm neither daiz nor do I used googleslop, take your fricking meds already
>I don't want webp 2.0
Glad we all agree that nobody wants AVIF.
Tells you how cancerous Google is when an evil company like Apple does the bare minimum of letting people choose between AVIF and JXL
And it turned out to no one's surprise that everyone wants JXL because it is objectively better st everything
cartoons should be distributed by each frame being an SVG file
Imagine someone actually made an entire anime using only svg. Why hasn't anyone done it yet?
it's mostly not how they commercially produce anime, and i think there is no particularly efficient encoder for this type of a thing. And then the playback devices want to "stream" this file, seek in it, need controls, need an efficient enough player(...) maybe you want sound, and so on.
Fully vector image encoded anime is a thing:
https://nyaa.si/view/1099393
https://nyaa.si/view/1096843
https://nyaa.si/view/1097157
jxl looks blurry