Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

> AV1 is also the foundation for the image format AVIF, which is deployed across browsers and provides excellent compression for still and animated images

I wish adoption was better. When will Wikipedia support AVIF?

View on HN

What does it bring over jpegxl?

Way wider browser adoption, potential to evolve together with AV#, since it's using a container format, so it shouldn't be limited to AV1 base. I.e. sites just need to adopt AVIF, and I expect then seamless ability to start using AV2 (and on) there without sites needing another wave of adding a new mime type and etc. which seems to be a huge hurdle.

Same as let's say Webm can contain AV1, AV2 etc.

It doesn't matter that AVIF uses the same container for AV1 or AV2 based encoding, if the browsers don't have the right decoder for it then they can't decode it.

An example of this is MP4: Browsers can decode videos encoded with H264 in MP4 containers, but not H265 even if it uses the same container, because one thing is the container and another thing is the codec, they're related but they aren't the same.

Browser adoption happens way faster than sites adoption (as current AVIF itself clearly demonstrates), so same container does matter to reduce contention on sites adoption side.

I.e. once browser adoption happens you'll be able to use AV2 for AVIF without the likes of Wikipedia taking another decade after that to add an additional mime type to their supported images.

Notably, AVIF uses the HEIF container like HEIC. HEIF is an extension of ISOBMFF, mp4 files are another example of an ISOBMFF format. I'm surprised how ubiquitous that container format is becoming; webm uses the matroska / mkv format but I bet if it was created today they would have likely used something ISOBMFF derived

The standard/spec is not paywalled. So... yeah.

Hopefully never. Abusing Intra-frames from video codecs is an abomination. Use JPEG-XL.

On the web? Good luck. AVIF is considered a baseline browser feature as of last year by the W3C; whereas JPEG XL is not fully supported by any stable browser release whatsoever, only Safari has been shipping partial support.

Until Google (and by proxy their underling Mozilla) becomes sane again, JPG or PNG/SVG depending on content.

It might change now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46033330

My Fujifilm X100VI shoots HEIC/HEIF, which is like the AVIF of H.265/HEVC. It seems to offer better compression than JPEG while having smaller file size. iPhone does this too. Why are you calling it an abomination?

Cameras should start using AVIF. HEIF is completely DOA for anything, same as H.265 is.

HEIF is the container format shared by AVIF and HEIC.

Yeah, good point. I meant HEIC (image codec), not the container.

I hope everyone switches over to AV1 or AV2 stills so we can have completely open image pipelines but It’s silly to say something is “DOA” when it’s been in use for 9 years (since 2017) by one of the world’s most popular consumer cameras (iPhone) and is now popping up in high end cameras. The company I work for (Notion) long ago had to start supporting HEIF uploads because a ton of our users expect their pictures to just work.

It'd still call it DOA if Apple are the only ones keeping it around. No one else is and no one else really cares. Also I think they have an ulterior motive - they are part of those who profit from patents on it. So they likely want to keep it around longer than others.

Android also seems to use it, on some devices (default in the stock camera app?). So does Sony. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Reply on news.ycombinator.com