Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 60 of 60

Thread: JPEG XL vs. AVIF

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    yes, it's good at preserving faces (not at lower modular modes), but art, body this type of pictures isn't very optimized.
    Others than that it has many settings that produce similar images:
    JPEG XL
    d 0.021, d 0.164, d 3.164, d. 9.6, modular N (near lossless)

  2. #32
    Member DZgas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    It's a pity that JpegXL has the same problems as the any Jpeg.

    Original | JpegXL 10 Kb | AVIF 10 Kb.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FORM.png 
Views:	172 
Size:	517.3 KB 
ID:	7862  

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 1 Post
    Do we know whether camera manufacturers and smartphones manufacturers plan on releasing new models that can take photos natively in Jpeg XL?

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Which version of JPEG XL you use? Do you compile it from gitlab before running experiments, or do you use an older version? We had non-optimal integral transform selection in the encoder that I fixed very recently. The most recent code should give less DCT artefacts.

  5. #35
    Member DZgas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    "Everyone should switch to JpegXL" - Well said... I don't know who will support JpegXL.
    AVIF supported from The Alliance for Open Media.

    In the last post I write my JpegXL version, is code from gitlab.
    I don't want to compile it, heh... I get cjpegXL here https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=174300&page=15

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Honestly I like -d 4.1 -s 9 version 7a2f362a Jpeg XL.
    Someone compiled in a discord server the build.
    I wouldn't use lower values and I'd prefer if the same quality as -d 4.1 -s 9 could be achieved with more speed, less effort.
    I understood modular is better to encode text and objects and
    whatever settings you use to re encode jpeg the quality would be serious damaged.
    There is also the jpeg xl recompressor (is it the right term ? ) who is the default option to convert jpeg.
    Even d 0.616 speed 3 produces better quality than modular near lossless in some cases with false png.
    Also jpeg xl sometimes whitens photo to mantain the visual quality that also because Jpeg XL includes XYZ color space.
    Last edited by fabiorug; 21st August 2020 at 18:10.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fabiorug View Post
    Honestly I like -d 4.1 -s 9 version 7a2f362a Jpeg XL.
    Someone compiled in a discord server the build.
    I wouldn't use lower values and I'd prefer if the same quality as -d 4.1 -s 9 could be achieved with more speed, less effort.
    -d 4.1 means that you accept errors that are 4.1x what I consider just-noticeable-error.

    at -d 1.0 you would get exactly what I consider just-noticeable-errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by fabiorug View Post
    I understood modular is better to encode text and objects and
    whatever settings you use to re encode jpeg the quality would be serious damaged.
    There is also the jpeg xl recompressor (is it the right term ? ) who is the default option to convert jpeg.
    Yes, three main modes: VarDCT, Modular and lossless JPEG recompression. Unlike every other modern codec, all of these modes support progressive decoding.

    Quote Originally Posted by fabiorug View Post
    Even d 0.616 speed 3 produces better quality than modular near lossless in some cases with false png.
    Also jpeg xl sometimes whitens photo to mantain the visual quality that also because Jpeg XL includes XYZ color space.
    We use a colorspace similar to XYZ and Lab, but not strictly similar. We call it XYB.

    The whitening issues seems like it needs debugging. Could you file an issue to JPEG XL repo?

    (It could be because some image viewers use both the gamma and the ICC value of the image, some ignore the gamma value when the ICC profile is there.)

  8. Thanks:

    fabiorug (21st August 2020)

  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    ok thanks for your answer. I didn't know about the color space. Speed 3 -d 3.99 is amazing for compression, don't know how to explain, it estimates not only noise but also the blocking of the noise. Speed 6 -d 3.75 is probably better.
    Last edited by fabiorug; 21st August 2020 at 21:51.

  10. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    193
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
    fyi, GIMP now supports working with AVIF, import/export:

    https://www.gimp.org/news/2020/10/07/gimp-2-10-22-released/

  11. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 257 Times in 160 Posts
    If everybody switch to AVIF, convincing to switch again to JPEG XL might be impossible task ... will JPEG XL be frozen this year?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jyrki Alakuijala View Post
    Jpeg XL is not frozen yet. (Other than the jpeg repacking part of it.) Our freezing schedule is end of August 2020. Before that it is not a good idea to integrate for other than testing use.

  12. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 257 Times in 160 Posts
    ps. Entertaining AVIF vs JPEG XL fight: https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comment..._image_format/
    Recent Jon Sneyers slides (from 3rd October writing "Next week: hopefully FDIS stage (Final DIS)"...?): https://docs.google.com/presentation...b4791a110_0_20

  13. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarek View Post
    If everybody switch to AVIF, convincing to switch again to JPEG XL might be impossible task ... will JPEG XL be frozen this year?
    The authors will announce a bit stream freeze very soon now.

    The completed ISO process need more time -- just like it did for the original JPEG.

  14. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarek View Post
    Next week: hopefully FDIS stage
    FDIS will happen in January 2021. We had delivered a too big last minute simplification to proceed right now to FDIS.

    Particularly, we had replaced brunsli with a similar system that relies on the internals of JPEG XL VarDCT mode. This reduces decoder size by 20 %, reflected also in the specification size -- allowing it to be just below 100 pages right now.

  15. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I have a few doubts about the reference encoder.
    To reencode jpeg with lossy vardct is there a better metric than
    https://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/Quality/VIF.htm
    To me, VIF looks very interesting. But is there a way to know if people can distinguish VIF other than butteraugli d 1.0, improvements of encoders, finalization of ISO bitstream and subjective testings?
    for PNG is better and there are far better methods like for example butteraugli, JPG is recommended to use brunsli?
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:23.

  16. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Sorry for the secure shield png icons, I didn't add it, maybe grammarly attached it.
    My photo even at -d 4.83 -s 3 has horrible artifacts. Signs that jpeg xl is working good. It looks like aliasing masked by some ringing plus stretching of some faces.
    Seeing -d 4.83 -s 3 I can notice at -d 1 some things are removed like
    contours.
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:24.

  17. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fabiorug View Post
    Is there a method to predict the quality of a jpeg better than VIF, that does similar things?
    My understanding is that DSSIM in general is the best metric (according to TID2013 Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient).

    butteraugli is not far. Butteraugli 3rd norm is terrible in explaining the 'exotic' category of TID2013 errors. (...but VIF is even worse there.)

    Butteraugli '3rd norm' correlates best in the 'New' and 'Color' categories of TID2013. The 'Simple', 'New' and 'Color' categories likely respond closest to the degradations that happen in image compression.

    I suspect DSSIM may be originally fitted to TID2008 or TID2013, and that origin may explain its good results on TID2013. Butteraugli was fitted to an independent reference corpus of degradations mostly like TID2013 degradations in Simple/New/Color categories.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot 2020-10-12 at 9.13.54 PM.png 
Views:	19 
Size:	151.9 KB 
ID:	7987

  18. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Jon sneyers mentioned it at image ready (auto encoding). Only a person works on these features or there is a team?
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:24.

  19. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Why -g -q 50 -s 7 doesn't use lossy modular but lossless modular? The answer is below.
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:34.

  20. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Personally I would put good looking image at -s 4 -d 1.79 and file size smaller than the original as good image.
    But with limits flags jxl the auto encoding won't work and it won't re-encode anything, it would return NULL.
    Maybe is bit too extreme as a setting. -s 6 -q 55.4 Until -s 7 -q 77.6 I cannot see a difference, it looks transparent.
    But to look good it needs at least -s 3 -q 99.6
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:35.

  21. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    What q equivalent is for -d 6.138 -s 3?
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:35.

  22. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fabiorug View Post
    But I want to ask a question. What q is -d 6.138 -s 3?
    We will change the encoder so that -d and -q are just ways to control the quality of the resulting image, and one will need to choose with a separate flag between VarDCT and Modular modes.

  23. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    And also how auto encoder if it works with jpg can establish if it the case to re encode less as possible because the image was compressed more than one time, or can be re encode with -d 6.138 -s 3 or it looks good even with more filtering (patches, loop filter etc.) for example recompressed at good quality -d 1 -s 9 ?
    Do you need to establish/set a speed? for example auto encoder default speed 7.
    Does it establish/computer a custom butteraugli distance for the photo?
    Does it work for jpg?
    I know we need to wait next year to have those things working properly.
    But at least how is the accuracy, Jon Sneyers is sure to implement auto encoder? Will work only on default (7° speed)? Will have a flag or be present in the reference encoder? Does it adds more size to the cjpeg binary, it needs more dependencies or metrics?
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:27.

  24. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    TWO SETTINGS
    -q 74.59 -s 7
    (d 2.387)
    Now I understand why jpg encoding isn't enabled by default, it greatly reduces image quality especialy with these settings,
    it makes image looking like a older VHS. This is about FLIF size
    Or speed 8 -q 79.19 -s 8 d 1.973
    Last edited by fabiorug; 13th October 2020 at 15:36.

  25. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fabiorug View Post
    -q 74.59 -s 7
    (d 2.387)
    Now I understand why jpg encoding isn't enabled by default, it greatly reduces image quality especialy with these settings, it makes image looking like a older VHS.
    This is FLIF size settings.
    Or speed 8
    -q 79.19 -s 8
    d 1.973
    What is your viewing distance (in pixels of the image) ?

    I consider d1.0 a good level from a viewing distance of 1000 pixels.

  26. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    if I compress in this way it will make things more beautiful/less stiffy, even at -d 1 I can see women looking more sportive like a basketball player and something at s 9 is worse so even me, I like more s 7.
    Last edited by fabiorug; 16th October 2020 at 17:03.

  27. #56
    Member DZgas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    The few months have passed...
    If you look from far - jpegxl is looks better. Good progress.

    12 Kb
    Original | JpegXL | AVIF
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_127.png 
Views:	80 
Size:	934.9 KB 
ID:	8001  

  28. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DZgas View Post
    The few months have passed...
    If you look from far - jpegxl is looks better. Good progress.

    12 Kb
    Original | JpegXL | AVIF
    What command line do you use to get these results? (It doesn't look like the results I see. It looks like gaborish and adaptive reconstruction might be off.)

    You'll get slightly better results if you use the latest encoder that creates also 64x64, 32x64, and 64x32 DCTs.

  29. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    193
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DZgas View Post
    The few months have passed...
    If you look from far - jpegxl is looks better. Good progress.

    12 Kb
    Original | JpegXL | AVIF
    In the png you attached, AVIF(far right) looks better to me, even the word is readable.

  30. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    902
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 326 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dado023 View Post
    In the png you attached, AVIF(far right) looks better to me, even the word is readable.
    I agree with that. Currently AVIF tends to look better when compressing an image down to 10-20 kB. At normal compression rates however JPEG XL tends to win. The next update will improve the filtering in JPEG XL and add the 64x64 DCT, which both improve performance at low bitrates. Still it will be worse than AVIF there, but less.

    AVIF is willing to compromise the middle frequencies but keep high frequencies. JPEG XL spends a lot of bits on low and middle frequencies, but then there is less left for high frequencies.

    In this example the post-processing filtering of AVIF is left on, but for some reason all the filtering for JPEG XL's is turned off. I consider it is better to compare both with filtering off or filtering on, not some mixture.

    If you turn off gaborish, you will get less high frequencies than normally. Things get blurry or more quantized as the stock quantization matrices are optimized with gaborish on. Turning off gaborish increases block artefacts. Turning off gaborish reduces efficiency of further filtering.

    If you turn of the rest of the filtering, you will see more ringing and more block artefacts.

    Consider running cjpegxl without additional flags, only --distance.
    Last edited by Jyrki Alakuijala; 16th October 2020 at 14:53.

  31. #60
    Member DZgas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jyrki Alakuijala View Post
    What command line do you use to get these results? (It doesn't look like the results I see. It looks like gaborish and adaptive reconstruction might be off.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jyrki Alakuijala View Post
    Consider running cjpegxl without additional flags, only --distance.
    I used cjpegXL 0.0.1-c8ce59f8 (13 Oct) and commands only: --distance 7 --speed 9

    I think it's good that "JPEG XL spends a lot of bits on low and middle frequencies, but then there is less left for high frequencies."
    This is best for archiving photos, because AVIF just erases very large details.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. JPEG issues a draft call for a JPEG reference software
    By thorfdbg in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19th April 2017, 16:18
  2. JPEG XT Demo software available on jpeg.org
    By thorfdbg in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 16th September 2015, 15:30
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11th June 2015, 23:28
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6th February 2015, 05:57

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •