New AV1 video and AVIF image codecs

Started by Kadri, September 02, 2020, 05:59:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kadri


"New" as in still not widespread used of course.
I didn't read much in the last years related to codecs and came to this codec page by accident today...
AV1 instead of H264-H265 and AVIF hopefully instead of JPG sounds good.
Unfortunately these kind of changes don't come easily if at all mostly.

This is the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1

Here are some image comparision examples for AVIF too:
https://netflixtechblog.com/avif-for-next-generation-image-coding-b1d75675fe4

WAS

Oh man I don't like this. It's got the clarity/smooth algorithms built in that Topaz Labs made popular. They make things flat and lack detail while at a glance looking clean and crisp. To me it changes the whole artistic medium, from detail oriented to flat toned like a cartoon. The AV1 example image in that article fixes compression or noise in the original image, which could literally destroy shots in film where particles/dust is a intended effect.

Smoothing functions are by-default employed in both DTV boxes I've had and just never used them. They're earlier models of smooth features and it looks like mosaic filter applied at a small scale. Just terrible.



WAS

Hmm. I enabled it and tried AVIF but got bad results even with max effort and quality. Really bad banding and compressing blocking.

Hard to see in a compressed video but can barely see the added blocking from AVIF compared to original. It doesn't even appear to be adding any of the smoothing/clarity filters that the specification examples showed.

Dune

The comparisons on that site look promising.

Kadri

Quote from: WAS on September 02, 2020, 10:09:38 PMHmm. I enabled it and tried AVIF but got bad results even with max effort and quality. Really bad banding and compressing blocking.

Hard to see in a compressed video but can barely see the added blocking from AVIF compared to original. It doesn't even appear to be adding any of the smoothing/clarity filters that the specification examples showed.
I can't really see it in the video Jordan. But i really doubt that this codec would be so bad when it looks like they all want to use it.
There are the other factors like royalty etc. But still...from what i read around, with similar file sizes this should be the same quality and actually higher.

If it is not, as you say, then it sucks of course.

I still can not see the AVIF comparison in Firefox. I will try with Chrome.

Kadri


I looked ones more at your video. It might be that your AVIF comparison doesn't work too.
All other tests look finished and show the file size comparisons. But with AVIF it just keeps working in the lower right side.

Kadri

I tried with Chrome. The look depends on the kind of image too as always.
Just a quick test. Chrome got errors and had to refresh the page etc. on the large file especially.

Still early to say something concrete but to me it looks promising

Kadri

Quote from: Dune on September 03, 2020, 02:09:39 AMThe comparisons on that site look promising.
Did you tried it with Chrome Ulco? If you got no errors how did the large image look and did you get errors while testing?

Dune

I don't use chrome, just firefox and that looked good.


WAS

It just looks terrible. Smoothing people work into flat tones is just going to ruin representation of mediums. Literally a dusty attic scene would be flat atmosphere, no dust particles as they would be smoothed out like it does with the barn sky.

If it works like the Firefox version and is just jpeg like compression I'd be much happier. There is no filter effect with the website compressor, but their examples for video streaming at just bad. Topaz Labs is a curse on art, and not happy about it's type filters in a field meant to preserve a person's vision.

With topaz you can do a horrible composition in PS and run clarity and clean on it and it'll look like a digital painting like the barn preview.

Kadri

I have a feeling that you are comparing a bad, filtered (Topaz labs?) approach to a general use case.
You can use very high compression in JPG's and say the same for example.
Here is another page with some examples. AV1 looks at least on par with HEVC (in those examples at least).
https://www.androidauthority.com/av1-codec-1113318/

WAS

#14
JPEG does nothing of the sort filter wise.

Did you look at the specification images on the netflix blog from it in action on netflix?

While this is good for low quality, as it's better than blocks, the same is also employed in their high-bitrate example which is unacceptable of an art medium like film, and should be as close to the source as possible, which the JPEG accomplishes, albeit with some noticeable blocking. However, the detail of the scene is preserved. It would destroy partical grain effects. What if the barn is meant to look rustic and that smooth effect makes it look new. What if a lot with lot. Sand, dirty details, all will but smoothed and flat tone. In fact you can see blocking is still a thing, it's just being smoothed out with the filtering. The AI/Algorithm has issues with the tree branches on the right and tries to preserve them, showing the underlying blocked compression like JPEG.

Here is a side by side, you can clearly see the filter in action ridding the scene of detail and creating easily processed and streamed flat tones. It's in a ZIP because for some reason large PNGs have been failing in uploads lately for some reason.