New AV1 video and AVIF image codecs

[WAS]

You still keep defaulting to the most extreme compression methods which is negligent of my whole point. I'm talking about high-bitrate streaming. Even in Netflix full bandwidth example, the image is altered and still smoothed over with the filter. Netflix's current high-bitrate is great, there is no blocking, and I can see original film grain. This codec will rid that, inherently, by how it smooths all surfaces.

This isn't good. Many people do not like it. And that's why it's related to THE SAME type filters in smart TVs, the Soap Opera Effect, and HEVC, or topaz, ANY of them.

To sum up, I do not care about the extreme-case scenarios of heavy compression, I have a problem with it's filtering in general.

I also find using Web-Based JPEG compression to be negligent as well, it's been obsolete for almost 2 decades, contrary to what Planetside or Oshyan will have you do here. Lol Web exporting for JPEG/GIF has been advised against since I took web design in the early 2000s. It destroys images. Higher quality JPEG can perform well with little artifacts. If someone can't load a 500kb image, they just simply need to upgrade. This hasn't been a issue since even Dialup and the whole reason image-compressor algorithms were included in most dial-up services.

Microsofts already taken note of these concerns and Microsoft AVIF has the ability to disable filtering altogether like Mozilla can, where Netflix will have smoothing hard-coded on. And, of course, ironically, with that filter disabled, you get blocking just like in jpeg.

I also don't like that your argument seems to be based in convincing me the lack of surface details is better. Especially by using most extreme-case scenarios. As an artist I'm surprised you're not more concerned. If my films were released on Netflix I'd certainly be concerned. And with the way things are changing with film releases, people may have to specifically think about the cinematography just because Netflix will kill any subtle things like the tinkles of dust in a black background. I imagine The Mummy would look pretty bad with liquid-like sand rather than grained sand. Can't imagine what the sand storms would look like. Smooth clouds, after all that work in particle simulation. Or like if a website wanted to feature an artists work, but then heavily smoothed and compressed the entire thing which is not representative of the artists work. One of the main reasons a lot of people use PNG only only, to prevent web systems from compressing the images.

[Kadri]

...

I also don't like that your argument seems to be based in convincing me the lack of surface details is better.
...

I give up...

What i am trying to say is quite the contrary. You seem to read some posts quite different then intended. Or i am very badly wording them.
Avif does have more detail (in these examples) so i like what i see, because they have more detail. That is what am i saying.

Anyway. No need to talk more about something that will be or not around 2-5 years in the future.

[WAS]

Your definition of detail, especially preserved, is quite different from mine, and again, you're basing that on extreme compression, not expected viewing bitrates. Unless you're on early 2000s DSL, the examples you keep using wouldn't matter. It's the fact even the highest bitrate is augmented from source, let alone what's currently available thorugh netflix.

[WAS]

Here is my brown dwarf with as less compression as possible with CAVIF, it's completely destroyed. Compared that with the source, and max quality JPEG. I had to view the AVIF with firefox cause windows viewer doesn't open it, though I thought I read it supported it, including rotation.

AVIF is not for everything, especially large surfaces with fine details. You'll also see with gradients, and banding is just as common as JPEG (It's smoothed by the filter so not blocky in most areas), but apparently JPEG at max quality has far better results compared to it also applying the filter over compression, which is negligent at lowest compression.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eWRrqxV_fy_sQh6heYryMIK02XBnV7K0/view?usp=sharing

Additionally, compression with AVIF is slow, like I mentioned before, there's lots of tests about this too, making it a "higher-end" codec to begin with which puts older systems, and smart TVs at odd, so hopefully they keep legacy codecs. Here's a compression comparison chart, and AVIF is almost always slower: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TE5iLE08oV90EqOmFHnzBLwiPtQSs1XAvI3QfoMgKQM/edit#gid=0

This alone is why many codec methods are still not that widespread, decades on, because despite size, it comes down to decompiling or the act of compression by fabricators.

[WAS]

Also to note there is obviously some sort of AI/Sampler at play because even with lowest compression, it heavily compresses my dark brown dwarf image, down to 88kb. Sure great file size, but it ruins the image. I'd have to use lossless, at which point I might as well use JPEG so it's widely supported, and looks right.

[Dune]

I give up too.

[WAS]

Maybe actually try AVIF on your artwork Ulco and see how people like it lol It destroys my art, as I assumed it inherently would by what it does.

I honestly think maybe your  guys's eyes are getting bad, you guys have both not noticed quality concerns in art on numerous occasions.

Anything that augments a image beyond compression is taboo in digital art. For laymen sure. Whatever floats their boat, but fundamentally not understanding what something does to a image and trying to argue about it with negligent testing instead of use-case examples, is just negligent, and dumb. Why not try it out?

The fact you don't understand how it achieves small file sizes by simplifying the image is astounding. And than try to argue it has more detail. Lmao

[Kadri]

I have seen you more then ones being very stubborn and tunnel visioned Jordan.
You think that we don't know most of the things and concerns you are saying.

I disabled the smart settings in my plasma TV 7 years ago right when i bought it for example.
That is a different discussion i didn't want to go because what we talk here is only so so related. Yeah yeah filtering bla bla bla...
You can be sure that we know many of those things.

I used so many encoders that you might only maybe know them from Wikipedia.
One thing i hated when i was a teacher was the "that old teacher don't know anything at all attitude" as we probably all were when we were young.
But please you are not a teenager. You even didn't trust me when i said i use this since 30 years in an old argument. And didn't even tried-test it when i said it.
And no i can be wrong of course. And so can you too. That is ok.
There are old threads still around me being wrong. I have no problem with this. This isn't a race here.

"Why not try out?" is another of your insulting suggestions.
This thread is all about trying... how can't you see this?
You didn't trusted me and didn't do any test (on our old argument). But now you accuse us with this?

I don't say that this codec that i am just recently being fully aware is the next holly grail.
It does have its problems as all Lossy formats does have them.
But it just looks better with the same file sizes as JPG. And with smaller file sizes it looks much better then JPG.
If you need those smaller file size or not is up to the user.
But you can go much lower then JPG and still got a better image then JPG (Yeah subjective). This is just an option like in JPG so what?

When a codec can go so much lower then the other, there is a possibly that it is even better with higher file sizes.
So yes...testing with very small file sizes does have its merits too.
If you don't want compressed lossy formats then use PNG or whatever.
But i don't know in which land of the internet you live but mostly it is still JPG everywhere...unfortunately.

And i have done many "not negligent testing instead  of with use-case examples" so i tend to think that i am not "just negligent, and dumb".

Why are you sometimes so aggressive? Really why?

Nor Ulco nor i (hopefully) haven't made any personal accusations.

It is just a bloody fu**ing codec. We even don't know if we will use it in the future.

Come on Jordan if you wrote all those things in a Facebook page where every kind of people is around
you maybe (actually not but ) would be right.
But here everybody does have in this or that degree knowledge about these things.


I got bored of this thread because of your post and didn't want to post more about it.
But after your last post i wanted to write my findings anyway. At least others might find them interesting maybe.
You can read what i think about it below more clearly.
I hope you can get over your "interesting"! attitude and see what i mean.
I used standard HD images in most of the tests and some 4K ones.
Some were ordinary photos, some were TV signal test image like images and some were digital renderings.

1* With same high file size images and even with a little smaller file sizes (low compression) AVIF looks the same as JPG .

2* When you begin to use higher compression AVIF files looks much better all the way.

3* But after a certain compression threshold blurring (Ohhh yes there is blurring. We are not stupid Jordan)
    begins to creeping up in AVIF files.
    Small noisy parts of the image begin to look more smooth (and yes the blurring is maybe in the high size images too but just not clearly seen i know).

4* AVIF files does have after that threshold more blurring. But it preserves lines and middle detail better then JPG. Small detail is blurred away.
    But intermediate detail is blurred but still there. JPG files begin to show ugly blocking artifacts that are much much worse with smaller file sizes.
    Small and intermediate detail is lost more in JPG when compressed higher (very small file sizes).

5* AVIF files can compress especially lines and text much much better then JPG. There isn't even any race here really.
    Looks like AVIF could be very good for clipart and similar kinda illustrations and in cartoon movies where small noise especially is absent.

6* AVIF looses data in a better more pleasant way then JPG. That is the most subjective part of course.
    If you don't like compression (lossy codec does what a lossy codec is designed to. It looses data...tadaaaa) don't use it.
   

One of your examples is suspiciously too low quality (small size).
I could use very different compressions, file sizes easily with Gimp.
Don't know what you used for that but it could be a problem for testing as you should be able to use different options for compression.
For example i got in some tests higher file sizes with AVIF files then the original when i used very small compression.

Funny thing is i didn't wanted to respond because i know it would be too long

[Kadri]

This is the Avif Gimp export window.

[Dune]

I'd leave it at that, Kadri. Clearly stated (as ever)

[Kadri]

[WAS]

I could use very different compressions, file sizes easily with Gimp.
Don't know what you used for that but it could be a problem for testing as you should be able to use different options for compression.

I used raw libraries with command line wrapper, CAVIF, which are actually what's being used to test the format, not GIMP. Like the trimmean results above, showing AVIF to be ridiculously bloated.


If I wrote this on a Facebook page where actual artists with good version exist, they would likely support me, as the art community never supported HEVC becaue of it augmenting images, and likely won't support AVIF either. This is why after well over a decade HEVC never got popular, despite file size and "quality".

What you perceive as better is not better. It's inherently simplifying the image. The fact you don't understand the codec, again, is the root of all your problems here.

If we were on Facebook, you'd be surprised how contradicted you would be by artists such as quote form Reddit: " ... as it completely kills small details and gives encode 'wax', smooth look to everything". That's just one post of many people hating the augmented look changing the medium.

And against you still keep fooling yourself. A max quality JPEG will inherently have more detail than AVIF because, again, what AVIF does. You cannot argue that away with opinion, it's a technical truth.

And honestly, at this point it may be insulting because I have no respect for someone who can't see what's in front of their eyes. A max quality JPEG hardly even alters the image like a AVIF, even again all of Netflix max bitrate exmaples. Every single one of them is has surface smoothing and blurring. That's inherently lack of detail, no matter how you want to argue it. Just cause there is an illusion of detail like a pixar film, doesn't mean it's there.

[WAS]

And no matter how you look at it, you cannot justify changing the image at all when it comes to peopels artwork and film. It's negligent. Another reason HEVC failed. Changing the look of film. If YOU are ok with that, that's fine, but don't act like it's normal in any artistic perspective. You would be deplorably negligent.

[WAS]

Another thing many users have proven is Netflix is fooling audiences by using destroyed JPEGs that do not match the bitrate compression of any software, photoshop, gimp, or otherwise. Playing up their format change with falsifiable hyperbole. Deplorable there alone. An 80kb JPEG doesn't look remotely as bad as their examples. That's why I was pissed when you would ever use a web based JPEG export to compare too, which no one uses. Even Netflix's lowest bitrate looks nothing like their examples, and much clearer.

The fact you argue for a format which changes the medium and look to terribly smooth and waxy looking sad of an artist. I'd new want to view and augmented format of a film outside their artistic cinematography.

Use some difference comparisons of encoding from source compared to JPEG. Least JPEG honors the source. And yes, pixel density and grain, is part of detail. Lol Silly Kadri.

[Kadri]

...

The fact you argue for a format which changes the medium and look to terribly smooth and waxy looking sad of an artist.
...

I don't argue for Avif. I just compare Avif to JPG.
Every lossy format is bad for art. Avif just looks the better one compared to JPG with high compression.
With small compression (high file sizes) the discussion becomes mood.
I would love to use at least something like PNG whenever possible.
You seem to think we want to use Avif so badly just that we did a comparison here.
You assume things we didn't say Jordan.