The article compares the formats at equal file sizes, but I want to see how they compare at equal quality. None of the AVIF versions of the F1 picture look as good as the 74kb JPEG, losing a fair...
The article compares the formats at equal file sizes, but I want to see how they compare at equal quality. None of the AVIF versions of the F1 picture look as good as the 74kb JPEG, losing a fair amount of fine detail on the road. The JPEG looks the closest to the original.
Yeah, I didn't like the comparison image either; it has a lot of blurred elements which most modern compression algorithms are going to be bad at in general.
Yeah, I didn't like the comparison image either; it has a lot of blurred elements which most modern compression algorithms are going to be bad at in general.
I thought low frequency content was usually the easiest for most compression algorithms to handle because it has much more redundancy than high frequency content. Or do you mean specifically that...
it has a lot of blurred elements which most modern compression algorithms are going to be bad at in general.
I thought low frequency content was usually the easiest for most compression algorithms to handle because it has much more redundancy than high frequency content. Or do you mean specifically that it will produce ringing around the edges of large areas of similar color?
I think that first comparison is equal quality comparison, or at least it's supposed to be. When you use the pop-out comparison, the original format seems to be a 498kb version AVIF. It looks...
I think that first comparison is equal quality comparison, or at least it's supposed to be. When you use the pop-out comparison, the original format seems to be a 498kb version AVIF. It looks better than the 74kb JPEG, which effectively changes the road to be grainer, static, and with banding but that's the only significant difference. The 28kb AVIF is definitely much worse than both but at least better quality than anything else near its filesize.
I guess the takeaway from this is that AVIF is best when you really, really need to get the smallest file sizes.
The article compares the formats at equal file sizes, but I want to see how they compare at equal quality. None of the AVIF versions of the F1 picture look as good as the 74kb JPEG, losing a fair amount of fine detail on the road. The JPEG looks the closest to the original.
Yeah, I didn't like the comparison image either; it has a lot of blurred elements which most modern compression algorithms are going to be bad at in general.
I thought low frequency content was usually the easiest for most compression algorithms to handle because it has much more redundancy than high frequency content. Or do you mean specifically that it will produce ringing around the edges of large areas of similar color?
The latter; I'm talking about the quality of the image rather than the compression ratio.
I think that first comparison is equal quality comparison, or at least it's supposed to be. When you use the pop-out comparison, the original format seems to be a 498kb version AVIF. It looks better than the 74kb JPEG, which effectively changes the road to be grainer, static, and with banding but that's the only significant difference. The 28kb AVIF is definitely much worse than both but at least better quality than anything else near its filesize.
I guess the takeaway from this is that AVIF is best when you really, really need to get the smallest file sizes.