New AV1 video and AVIF image codecs

[Kadri]

Hmm...i think what we are talking about now is the subjective part about these kind of tests.
For me those blocks and banding in JPG's are unacceptable in these days.
We have seen here many threads about this problem as you know most probably.
Filtering or whatever, these kind of problems is good, if it is in an acceptable quality margin.
For me the blurry low bitrate image looks better then the low bitrate blocky JPG.
And with higher bitrate the AVIF just looks as it should too.
I understand you but my preference is just different.
I don't think that an image that does have artificial blocks in it does have more detail.
It looks just bad with blocks. But you may say it is just more blurry then blocky with AVIF...

Anyway... It is too soon.
I don't know if i will be really happy with this format until i see more and can test it as i want more deeply.

[Kadri]

And by the way your file example is a comparison of AVIF to the original image.
You should compare it with the JPG to the original. The JPG is just blocky.

[WAS]

Source is of course the best comparison of what's actually happening and to pay attention to the details lost. I already mentioned you can look at the high bitrate example and see the same filter employed, and same lack of detail. So no matter what on Netflix with that current method of AVIF you get a cartoon smoothing effect. If that could be turned off like in the examples online using just AVIF compression that would be wonderful, as I don't want me image augmented when at high quality. This is shared by many who always turn off smart picture functions on their TVs which do the same.

And of course I know it's a matter of taste but the initial rebuttal seemed to be "I don't see it". Which imo is disconcerting to even having a discussion about it if those fine details aren't immediately noticeable being lost. I am always a knit-pick with details. Like no offense to Ulco but it drives me nuts all his rock formations are smooth for the most part.   I see to much of the base noise formations.

[Dune]

For a comparable size of avif and jpg, the result of avif is very much better. If you compare original (left), with avif (right) and jpg (under), the jpg shows awful blocking for the same size, while avif does a pretty good job. Of course with high compression you loose detail, but that needs finetuning for specific saves.
I am not so negative about this.

[Kadri]

Yes looks better to me too Ulco.

[Kadri]

I found a version of Gimp with Avif support. I don't remember from where.
The file name is "setup_gimp_avif.exe". There are some plugins too around for Gimp.
These are still work in progress i think.
From just 3-4 tests i made it looks like if you don't go too far the files look good.
After a certain threshold the blurriness what Jordan don't like begin to change the look.
The JPG version kinda look more detailed (when high compressed like the Avif...but not very high).
But i think that is more because of the blockiness that feels like detail (but isn't) but actually gets worse in edges.
Testing is clumsy. I will wait more to see what happens in other software.
But a control to handle the filtering-blurines might be nice, especially for people like Jordan (no sarcasm) and maybe for different kind of images.

[Dune]

It's in progress, I figured, so I'll await any development. If it's good, it'll become a new standard, I guess.

[WAS]

For a comparable size of avif and jpg, the result of avif is very much better. If you compare original (left), with avif (right) and jpg (under), the jpg shows awful blocking for the same size, while avif does a pretty good job. Of course with high compression you loose detail, but that needs finetuning for specific saves.
I am not so negative about this.

Even on my phone I see immediately loss in detail, and on a grungy door that's unacceptable. It's really an example why not to use it imo. 

If it is so great, why not run all your renders through it and destroy them? topaz has the same AI clean algorithms. Get rid of all that PT noise.... And details xD

Not to mention without the filter, it just saved JPEG artifacts anyway, only when the filter algorithms are used in conjunction. These features are part of Netflix's use of AVIF. Throw any gradient at it

[Kadri]

"Even on my phone I see immediately loss in detail, and on a grungy door that's unacceptable. It's really an example why not to use it imo"

Jordan i think you are so accustomed to the way JPG images do look that you are a little biased against this.
Look at these resized and cropped images of the image Ulco posted.

Actually the Avif file does have more detail then the JPG one. And without those blocks.

[Kadri]

I tried it with the other images there too.
All similar high compressed Avif files does have more detail then the JPG ones and without those blocks.
Try it yourself Jordan. You will see that the opposite what you are saying is true.
Until i tried this myself i was a little worried too about that filter.
At least in those examples Avif just looks better from a detail preservation point.

[Dune]

I think WAS compares the avif with the original, but that's not the point here. Of course there's loss. It's the comparison in same file size (!) between avif and jpg. And that's so much better.

[WAS]

No I compared to the detail in in the compressed images, or otherwise, being lost entirely. It's OK that you like the soap opera effect or smoothing filters, but a lot of people don't like it, and hate what it does to their movies, for example from consumer reports: https://www.consumerreports.org/tvs/turn-off-these-3-features-in-every-tv/

It seems maybe you're too trained to look for blocking rather than the actual substance of the images, it seems. A grungy door, rendered smooth and all surface detail removed, for example. This goes a long way with hair, facial features, etc, the whole reason we wanted blu-ray, and now more normal 4k-8k content. This is creating the illusion of "better compression" by simply hiding it with filters. If you go lossy, for speed, you'll get block compression. If you go high, you'll get more background/surface smoothing and edge reconstruction based on that lossy jpeg-like image. You can go lossless as well, though it takes awhile for some reason.

The smoothing filter has a spacial control, which would be cool if it was exposed in config on Netflix. But I'm definitely not the only one who does not like the smoothing filters of AV1/F and x265. Especially when it's so bad it's just a worse version of the soap opera effect that was ruining flatscreen TV sales because of default smart picture settings.

There was a phone released, I can't even remember the name of it, but it came with Avatar loaded on it as a special deal to show off the 1080p screen. What you got was a barely 1gb version of the movie heavily compressed with HEVC or something removing all the glorious detail so the handset could even run it at 1080p resolution. It didn't look the best and I remember other people upset on android central too.

[Kadri]

Quote from: WAS 05/09/2020, 09:24:05
    ...

    It seems maybe you're too trained to look for blocking rather than the actual substance of the images, it seems.
    ...

Now this is the part we are having a hard time to communicate. This was the exact thing i said that you have a bias.
The other parts in your last post does have reasonable things that i tend to accept too mostly.

What i not understand is, our discussion isn't about Topaz, Tv smart features or whatever (that i accept like you, as i said).

Our discussion is, if those images (Ulco posted from that site) does have more detail (Avif versus JPG).
The Avif files does have very clearly more detail.
And if you think that JPG does have in those images more detail i am really surprised.

In the jpg version many lines of the wood are just gone. And as a bonus you get blocky artifacts even.
If you still think that in these images  Avif does have less detail i wont say anything more.

[Kadri]

Even the PNG file sizes are hinting for what i am trying to say.
Higher detailed images do have in general higher file sizes too with PNG.

[Kadri]

I wanted to see how Avif would look with an ordinary telephone camera shooted image.
This is our cat. I used Avif version of Gimp. As it is still a work in progress caution is needed of course.
But Avif and JPG aren't even comparable in this test.
JPG even with its 2 times the file size (JPG 28 KB versus Avif 12 KB) looks just horrible.
(I had to use the PNG version of the Avif file here of course)

I did different tests too. Some were so good for Avif i got suspicious if there is any problem related to encoding (there still might be).

Anyway. If this format will succeed i don't know. But it looks very encouraging.

And a better animated image format instead of GIF would be very nice with this too of course