logoalt Hacker News

Time for AVIF everywhere?

78 points • by speckx • last Saturday at 5:34 PM • 58 comments • view on HN

Comments

simonw • yesterday at 4:36 PM

Only just started habitually using WebP...

I added AVIF support to my personal image resizing tool recently - https://tools.simonwillison.net/image-resize-quality - I mostly use that for screenshots though, and WebP works better for those.

➕ show 2 replies
ChrisArchitect • last Saturday at 9:59 PM

Don't you mean JPEG XL?

JPEG XL vs. AVIF for web use-cases

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50120224

➕ show 2 replies
Aldipower • yesterday at 5:26 PM

AVIF consumes around 25 times more CPU during encoding as JPEG. Take this in consideration if you pay for the power consumption. And on the user-facing side, if you upload an images it takes f.ex. 12 seconds (sic!) and not half a second.

➕ show 1 reply
thekid314 • yesterday at 4:14 PM

Absolutely agree, for my photo portfolio website AVIF allows me to serve higher quality photos faster to potential clients.

I’ll just drop my AVIF local support for Wordpress plugin here: https://github.com/ddegner/avif-local-support

remix2000 • yesterday at 5:17 PM

Does AVIF carry the same patent risks as full/motion AV1?

(I’m not saying I support the claims or not, I have no idea about their technical and let alone legal merit, just thinking that there are attempts at enforcement against sites streaming AV1 and whether choosing AV1 puts say my site at risk)

➕ show 3 replies
nwah1 • yesterday at 4:27 PM

Regular JPEG can also be compressed much more than it usually is:

https://symbiogenesis.github.io/DotJpegli/

However, video would matter so much more than images, to the overall internet, that images don't even matter by comparison.

➕ show 1 reply
xp84 • yesterday at 7:20 PM

Hosting providers don't want these formats because they're more cpu-intensive for them to decode and transform (e.g. to make a thumbnail, or when you upload a 4K selfie to be cropped into a 256x256 circle avatar, or a 16 megapixel image of a receipt).

By contrast, if you let the user upload a JPEG or even a PNG, you might pay a slightly-higher cost of the incoming bandwidth, but then you (basically for free) transform the image to the small dimensions and format you actually need, and from there the bandwidth is barely a problem.

Sidenote: End users hate WEBP because nearly any software other than web browsers still don't support even reading it, let alone outputting it (and as you pointed out, anywhere that you "upload an image" they're not welcome either).

In my incredibly shoddy testing sample of 1, my current-macOS device does open AVIFs in Preview, so that's an improvement, at least!

origini • yesterday at 4:23 PM

Yeah why not?

Because whenever I download an image and its webp, the next thing i do is i google "webp to png/jpg" conversation because yeah service XY or Tool Z doesn't support it.

Or my Fire TV Stick :(

I configure my nginx to serve everything available though. Thats what i can do.

➕ show 1 reply
chrismorgan • yesterday at 6:38 PM

> I have already switched to AVIF on every platform I use that supports it, and WebP where AVIF isn't supported.

Where AVIF isn’t supported, I reckon you’re better to fall back to JPEG. Everything supports JPEG, but there are still plenty of things that don’t support WebP. Anything that supports WebP now has indicated it’s open to supporting newer formats than the baseline JPEG/GIF/PNG and is almost certain to support AVIF within a few years.

kasabali • yesterday at 4:44 PM

> Even YouTube is preparing to move beyond AV1 and begin streaming video using AV2, potentially as early as 2027. If a company handling the enormous amount of video that YouTube does sees the benefits of a more efficient format, shouldn't the rest of the internet be taking a closer look at what we can do with images and video too?

Odd argument.

Image isn’t video and we are not YouTube.

➕ show 2 replies
kiwibyproxy • yesterday at 6:20 PM

not one mention of JXL in the article?

0x_rs • yesterday at 4:54 PM

Enough keyframe-based "image" formats, please! The internet and the world at large needs a real and proper modern format, not some quick hacks from bored engineers that only contribute to the endless fragmentation online and do not leverage any existing infrastructure for serving video. There's more than just crappy ultra-low-quality thumbnails around. WebP, AVIF are the webscale equivalent of serving images.

➕ show 1 reply
BorisMelnik • yesterday at 4:43 PM

I swear I saw this exact post here on HN last week

DivingForGold • last Saturday at 6:30 PM

Seems about time we have ANOTHER round of serious investigations into collusion in the memory industry artificially driving up prices ...

flerchin • yesterday at 4:34 PM

Maybe a middle out compression is the way to go.