Mozilla Firefox Appears Ready To Enable AVIF Image Handling Support By Default

[AmericanLocomotive]

Google doesn't have to support WebP across all of its products, just the most important ones. I didn't even know anyone uses Google Slides, are you also using Google+?

The G-Suite for Education is being used by almost 100 million students globally, and Google Slides is a huge component of that. Never mind the 5+ million businesses who use G-Suite as part of their daily activities.

WebP isn't supported on ANY G-Suite product: Docs, Slides, Sheets, Drawings, Jamboard, etc... It's absurd that Google is pushing its successor when they've only barely implemented into their own web products.

[shmerl]

avifenc -j 12 -s 0 --min 0....63 --max 0....63 test.jpg test.avif

Trying that on Debian testing:

avifenc test.png test.avif 
Successfully loaded: test.png
AVIF to be written: (Lossy)
* Resolution     : 1436x1029
* Bit Depth      : 8
* Format         : YUV444
* Alpha          : Present
* Range          : Full
* Color Primaries: 1
* Transfer Char. : 13
* Matrix Coeffs. : 6
* ICC Profile    : Absent (0 bytes)
* XMP Metadata   : Absent (0 bytes)
* EXIF Metadata  : Absent (0 bytes)
* Transformations: None
Encoding with AV1 codec '(null)' speed [8], color QP [0 (Lossless) <-> 10 (High)], alpha QP [0 (Lossless) <-> 0 (Lossless)], tileRowsLog2 [0], tileColsLog2 [0], 1 worker thread(s), please wait...
ERROR: Failed to encode image: No codec available

What is missing?

[birdie]

There wasn't a wave of adoption except from Google and virtually no hardware encoding/decoding.

VP9 is now universally supported unlike AV1 whose support is laaaaaaacking.

[Mathias]

found a great write up here
https://jakearchibald.com/2020/avif-has-landed/

Those sizes... are interesting. But they show the images at a width of ~800px while it is encoded at 1920px. What modern codecs can do really well is smooth details away (and they do a pretty good job at that). My point is, you can trivially encode the image at 800px width into 37kb and have an acceptable quality. Even if you upscale again to 1920px it looks better then JPEG encoded to the same size with the full resolution. On the other side, I wouldn't call the 18kb AVIF "acceptable" at full resolution.
AVIF/WebP are easier to use, because you don't have to downscale the image to get a good compression. They are better for sure. But they are not that much better then those comparisons make you believe.

[cl333r]

The G-Suite for Education is being used by almost 100 million students globally, and Google Slides is a huge component of that.

Then why in your opinion Google Slides doesn't support WebP. One can't say "because WebP is worse than PNG" because the opposite is true. So what's the reason - lazy Google employees?

[AmericanLocomotive]

...I never said because WebP is worse than PNG. I was simply commenting that Google, a major proponent of WebP (and its successor) doesn't even support WebP on one of its major products. Google receives ~9-10 billion in yearly revenue from G-Suite. So not as profitable as their advertising network, but not exactly small potatoes either.

[Quackdoc]

Those sizes... are interesting. But they show the images at a width of ~800px while it is encoded at 1920px. What modern codecs can do really well is smooth details away (and they do a pretty good job at that). My point is, you can trivially encode the image at 800px width into 37kb and have an acceptable quality. Even if you upscale again to 1920px it looks better then JPEG encoded to the same size with the full resolution. On the other side, I wouldn't call the 18kb AVIF "acceptable" at full resolution.
AVIF/WebP are easier to use, because you don't have to downscale the image to get a good compression. They are better for sure. But they are not that much better then those comparisons make you believe.

That's not really relevant, the point is the compression:quality ratio compared to other compressed encoding methods, as long as each of the methods are encoded similarly it should scale somewhat equivalently. bar cases like as shown lossless. but thats what they have the original for, so you can see the quality, just take a look when you match the file sizes of even webm vs avif, the difference is massive, also Im not sure why the 18kb avif wouldn't be acceptable. im sure most people looking at it wont find too much of an issue with it.

[AmericanLocomotive]

Even when you look at the images at full size, the AVIF image isn't any less acceptable than the JPEG image. Especially since the JPEG image has absolutely terrible blocking. The fact that the AVIF image is 1/4th the size of the JPEG image is more than a fair trade off.

[OneTimeShot]

Even when you look at the images at full size, the AVIF image isn't any less acceptable than the JPEG image. Especially since the JPEG image has absolutely terrible blocking. The fact that the AVIF image is 1/4th the size of the JPEG image is more than a fair trade off.

20kb rather than 80kb for a similar quality image... We are *almost* at the the point where it's worth thinking about picking a newer format than JPEG Maybe for 4k/8k images?

At the end of the day, JPEG is the 28 year-old image format that just keeps on truckin'

[Quackdoc]

At the end of the day, JPEG is the 28 year-old image format that just keeps on truckin'

that's just pretty much because of lazy devs and the curse of backwards compatibility... the general users use jpeg because its familiar, they could be given any number of formats and 90% of the time default to jpeg... even when they want "The best quality possible"... and of course, many programs and devices dont support "modern" formats like webp despite it being objectively superior in most cases and 10 years old now...