Thread 106482961

2.4KiB avif vs. 2.8KiB jpg

Why the difference in quality?

>>106482961 (OP)

people been reading jpeg spec for 33 years they have come up with bandwidth savings

>>106482961 (OP)
thats a 140kb jpg tho

>>106483140
I uploaded it as a png but 4chan turned it into a jpg for some reason. Anyway it looks like the original avif and jpg so it illustrates the point fine.

>>106483189
you didnt show any avif tho, thats a jpg

>>106482961 (OP)
Because unlike lossy webp, lossy avif doesn't have that retarded problem where it gives you a file bigger than the jpeg. Ironically lossless avif gives you a bigger filesize than lossless webp.

Jpeg xl is trying to fix this but there some images will still result in smaller file sizes via AVIF so it looks like we're practically speaking, stuck with both.

only people that care about this are mega corpos and autists, if i got paid 200k a year to look into this i would but im not so i dont care

>>106482961 (OP)
right one looks more sovlful

>>106482961 (OP)
post jpeg xl pepe

>>106483529
jxl on the right, but even on the lowest quality setting in magick it would not go below 5KiB

>>106483559
You are either lying or you produce lossy slop.
Its a cartoon frog with 4 colors, use lossless like every normal human person.

>>106483189
you uploaded a jpg and the picture looks like a jpg

>>106483559
i only see one jpg here

>>106483559
that's just one image

png or death

>>106482961 (OP)
>look guys, i took this image that is originally a lossless png, i encoded it in two lossy formats, put them next to each other, and encoded it again in a lossy format
>now let me explain why we need to use lossy google slop and reencode all our images and lose quality

>>106483390
>[webp] gives you a file bigger than the jpeg
In 2.7% of cases...

A jpeg reencoded into AVIF will always have worse quality than the original jpeg.
A lossy AVIF will always, in all cases, have worse quality than a PNG.

Therefor i don't see a usecase in avif.
At least webp got some acceptable lossless performance going for it.

>>106483786
2.7% too many

>>106482961 (OP)
>Pepe fed edition
fuck off

>>106483846
The point is that WebP is net positive, especially when you consider that images can be higher quality for less data use.

>>106483872
>images can be higher quality
see >>106483840

>>106483786
>>106483846
>>106483872
When you attempt archival quality lossy it's more like 50%. That's because webp is limited to 4:2:0 chroma sub sampling which sacrifices color resolution in an image for better compression efficiency at low file sizes.

Essentially Webp ONLY works okay when the existing JPEG itself is 4:2:0 and not 4:4:4. Also it needs to be significantly huge in file size to not justify a lossless jpeg xl compression.

Lossy webp is fucking cursed.

>>106483910
>archival quality lossy
that would be a lossy compressed DNG, which allows jpeg-xl, but doesn't allow avif, as it is recommended by the library of congress

If your mean your shitty meme folder on your external drive, just keep it lossless. Like everybody does.

>>106483952
No, many internet jpeg 4:2:0 images are encoded via a GPU instead of a CPU. Similar to video, an image GPU encoder like Nvjpeg will either produce unreasonably huge file sizes or piss poor quality. If it's the former then a webp encode can produce an archival quality via lossy compression and reduce the file size by 20-30% because libwebp is exclusively a CPU encoder.

The image codec situation on the web is an absolute fucking mess desu.

https://developer.nvidia.com/nvjpeg

>>106484035
I am not reading your cope.
Lossy to lossy encoding is idiotic.
And lossy is always worse quality than lossless. That is the whole point of it.

And archival is about storing the highest quality. You archive music in flac so you archive images as lossless or even RAW if you get that.
Lossy-to-lossy reencoding for archival is an oxymoron.

The only usecase of lossy-to-lossy is fucking thumbnails that you cache and can delete at any point.
But WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THUMBNAILS.
Are you digging through charts just to find out what format to use for temporary thumbnails?

>>106484035
>The image codec situation on the web is an absolute fucking mess desu.
Most images on the web are lossless PNGs.
So the situation is much better than expected! Turns out that most people actually value quality.

>>106482961 (OP)
Using the fed pepe with the line the CSNBC article added, is ironic.

The only reason why this pepe spread is because it was the first result on the Google image search for pepe.
Back in the day, people actually used google image search and copied images from there to repost.
It all changed when google decided to serve webps. Even the most normiest normies stopped doing it, because they realized that google images saved funny and werent accepted anywhere.

And here you are, shilling for webp3

>>106484103
????

If you can't wrap your head around the concept of lossy archival quality then I can't help you desu.

What we can all agree on is that when that a GPU encoded 4:2:0 JPG with dogshit quality gets converted to a webp you end up with a webp that is BIGGER in file size compared to the source JPG especially at high quality which is why Jpeg XL applying lossless transformations to the huffman tables or whatever resulting in smaller file sizes is pretty fucking cool and whatnot.

That's why I say webp is cursed because even IF you come across a correct 4:2:0 JPEG image you don't know if the file size is needlessly huge or not for webp to achieve that 20-30% filesize reduction with no noticeable quality loss. Websites DON'T FUCKING CARE if the net positive means less bandwidth used.

>>106484116
For mom and pop websites, sure. Not the globo-homo one serving millions of user uploads per day. Do you think they would be able to make any money if they had a backlog of images to CPU encode because they decided to focus on better compression efficiency? You think they're your friend?

>>106484195
50% lower filesize compared to both 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 JPGs encoded by a GPU is nice though it still assumes that the file size of the JPEG is huge. So call it what you will but by volume AVIF would still save us a lot of bandwidth but knowing globo-homo they'll just use GPU AVIF encoders because profit line must go up lol. But yeah, hopefully only CPU encoder for JXL exist like webp and the fucking imbeciles don't touch the default settings.

>>106484273
Corpos are indeed not our friends and they want to trash quality just to save a few cents.
Thats another reason why your lossy-to-lossy shilling for google formats is retarded.

I don't want to lose quality.
Most of the internet doesnt want to lose quality.

>>106484273
>50% lower filesize compared to both 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 JPGs encoded by a GPU is n...
blablablablabla
I don't care, idiot, lossy-to-lossy loses quality. I end up with a worse picture.

On a related note it's worth noting that we really take 4chan for granted sometimes. They could just take your PNG/4:4:4 JPG uploads and Nvjpeg encode them to a 4:2:0 JPG. Profit line would go up and other users would then save these abominations, upload them, and the whole incestous process would begin again. Like even though webp isn't supported yet nothing is stopping you from say using Guetzli.

>>106484428
It's almost as if bandwith isnt much of a problem in the age of free CDNs.
And 20 years ago, when bandwidth was spare, people also used png and jpeg.

There really isn't much use in those current-thing temporary image formats that get replace all two years.

>>106484554
Nah, you're getting this impression because you spend too much time on a mongolian basket weaving forum where samefagging became so rampant that 4chan decided to get rid of the IP counter. So it's really like a few samefags per thread opening/uploading images every once in a while.

That's is like taking a piss in an ocean of piss with the latter being what high traffic websites have to deal with. CDNs have made it more manageable not necessarily cheaper.

We could just not rely on these CDNs and P2P everything but then the cloudflare mafia would DDOS that too. You just can't have nice things because...

YOU just can't okay?

>>106482961 (OP)
>posts comparison using jpg
anon are you okay???????

>>106482961 (OP)
>>106483559
these are both jpegs tho

>>106484655
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Is this just an AI rambling random things?

Of course cloudflare makes it cheaper to serve static images.
If you serve so much that you have to pay for it, you are still cheaper paying your fee than to try to serve it all yourself.

The whole point of that glowfag company is to slurp up the internet, and thats what they offer for it.

>>106485620
>you are still cheaper paying your fee than to try to serve it all yourself.
Again not necessarily. It's not that you particularly might NEED a CDN. It's really that coincidentally if you don't use them you'll be vulnerable to a DDOS attack.

CAPISH?

>>106482961 (OP)
Haha
I always knew Daiz shills were right on spot.
>>106484428
>we really take 4chan for granted sometimes
trvth nvke
>>106485620
>And 20 years ago, when bandwidth was spare, people also used png and jpeg.
20 years ago, its wasn't just the bandwidth. Even the computer were slow.
So slow that relying on anything other than raw bytes for presenting the image was a huge burden on both CPU and GPU. Vector rendering used to be absolute shit 20 years ago but since our modern computers are fast now, we can afford to rely on fancy shit like avif and reap its benefits.
>>106484554
>It's almost as if bandwith isnt much of a problem in the age of free CDNs.
>Of course cloudflare makes it cheaper to serve static images.
the point of an image board is to server images and having to serve a lot is the expected use case when the user base is huge.
And most images here are not 2K or 4K high-res shit but low-key memes. If efforts are not put into avoiding storing of duplicate image uploads, just fetching the image you are viewing on the thread form an existing behemoth of image-storage alone would literally take seconds for the backend to respond.
And reducing the bandwidth is another essential thing to deal with because it helps with fetching data faster. But then, its not as simple as "server static images". There's the DDOS and free CDNs only provide basic protection against it. For something like 4chan, free shit service just won't do.
Though avif and jpg occupy same amount of memory once they get converted into raw pixels and stored inside the RAM, it really helps with reducing the bandwidth by transmitting less information so it potentially could cut costs down and might even hold strong against DDOS shit.

>>106482961 (OP)
um. what?

>>106483749
Beyond based.

>>106482961 (OP)
avif imagines temporal changes in the file it is effectibely playing 4D chess while jpg is playing checkers

jpeg is the best

>>106482961 (OP)
1 week vs 1 month no foot job

Why the difference?

>>106491678
probably some mean area color compression shit

>>106482961 (OP)
Staring pepe.jpg should be the new Lena test image.

>two different file formats from completely different eras
>why the difference

big images

I ignore all this bullshit and continue to use jpg and PNG

>>106490626

ten bit colors at avif

>>106483559
Why are you posting JPGs?
Actually nevermind, you're a frogposter so you're just retarded

>>106491678
Isn't WebP just a container? What code did you use for it?

>>106492311
We used this image in college. Since it was before social media internet, everyone just assumed it was the professor's wife or dream girl.

>>106495621
>code
*codec