My latest hyperfixation
-
I'm using MX Linux and Firefox, I'll test the browser. But using VLC it's no problem here.
Yeah, external players like mpv and vlc are perfectly fine. Works on FF for me too. Seems like the issue pops up every couple of months with droves of people posting on random forums all around.
-
Ah, but are you using aomenc, SVT-AV1 or rav1e? Or one of the forks maybe?
noob here
is DAV1D a thing as well ?
-
I'll take any excuse I can get to dump my perspective here. I love AV1 for video and I hate AVIF with a passion. Every video that I create is delivered in AV1, because it is incredibly useful, versatile and extremely powerful. Right tool for the right job.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with AVIF other than it tries to force a video codec into something that is that it is not meant for, namely a still image codec. I hate the drama around it that Google has created. Because the stupid cunt that created AVIF is an emotional slime, he tried to block JPGXL, a competitor for AVIF, from having official support in the Google Chrome browser. And because Google Chrome is a monopoly in the browser market, CDNs and other people who'd like to use JPGXL, since it has significantly better all around features for still images, cannot use it now.
Features of JPEG-XL:
- better still image compression than AVIF
- lossless JPEG transcoding
- progressive image loading
- universally usable from capture to delivery
- layer support with 4,099 channels
- CMYK Compatible
- 32 bits per channel
- no limitations on image size or colour precision
And all of that is thrown away because one bastard has his feelings hurt by user choice.
Thank you for listening to my useless TED Talk.
Edit: While I sound extremely black-pilled about this, because monopolies are bad, the positive thing is that it's gaining traction, finally. Apple has fully embraced it some time ago. Now Microsoft Windows supports it natively as well. Literally the only missing piece is the browser. While Safari, thanks to Apple, - never thought I'd say that - now supports JPEG XL natively, Firefox and Google Chrome do not as of right now. So the browser is literally the last missing link for full native support. Also, I'd wish for the people at Mozilla to stop letting themselves be cucked by Google. But JPEG XL is around the corner, luckily, because sooner or later they will be forced to use the modern format to stay competitive, like Samsung already does for their phone cameras. Still salty about the attempt, though.
Thank you for your TED Talk. I had no idea about the creator of AVIF or anything, BUT, I still really like that I can just use the same knowledge when it comes to transcoding jpegs/whatever to it. It uses the same codec, same parameters, supports animations, is like 1/100th the size of gifs...
I guess webp can do that latter part as well, but having a single tool able to do these things is neat in my opinion. (Please don't come at me, systemd haters)
I think jxl also supports waaaaay higher resolutions and everything. So yeah, fair argument that I'm not, in any way, against.
Compression and accessibility are just really fascinating things to me, and I'm sure once the next huge, well-supported thing, comes around, so will I. -
I'll take any excuse I can get to dump my perspective here. I love AV1 for video and I hate AVIF with a passion. Every video that I create is delivered in AV1, because it is incredibly useful, versatile and extremely powerful. Right tool for the right job.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with AVIF other than it tries to force a video codec into something that is that it is not meant for, namely a still image codec. I hate the drama around it that Google has created. Because the stupid cunt that created AVIF is an emotional slime, he tried to block JPGXL, a competitor for AVIF, from having official support in the Google Chrome browser. And because Google Chrome is a monopoly in the browser market, CDNs and other people who'd like to use JPGXL, since it has significantly better all around features for still images, cannot use it now.
Features of JPEG-XL:
- better still image compression than AVIF
- lossless JPEG transcoding
- progressive image loading
- universally usable from capture to delivery
- layer support with 4,099 channels
- CMYK Compatible
- 32 bits per channel
- no limitations on image size or colour precision
And all of that is thrown away because one bastard has his feelings hurt by user choice.
Thank you for listening to my useless TED Talk.
Edit: While I sound extremely black-pilled about this, because monopolies are bad, the positive thing is that it's gaining traction, finally. Apple has fully embraced it some time ago. Now Microsoft Windows supports it natively as well. Literally the only missing piece is the browser. While Safari, thanks to Apple, - never thought I'd say that - now supports JPEG XL natively, Firefox and Google Chrome do not as of right now. So the browser is literally the last missing link for full native support. Also, I'd wish for the people at Mozilla to stop letting themselves be cucked by Google. But JPEG XL is around the corner, luckily, because sooner or later they will be forced to use the modern format to stay competitive, like Samsung already does for their phone cameras. Still salty about the attempt, though.
I wonder how we're feeling for HEIC? Any drama/pros/cons I should know of? As AAPLs weight is behind, I wonder if we'll get browser wars for this decades' image formats.
-
I'll take any excuse I can get to dump my perspective here. I love AV1 for video and I hate AVIF with a passion. Every video that I create is delivered in AV1, because it is incredibly useful, versatile and extremely powerful. Right tool for the right job.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with AVIF other than it tries to force a video codec into something that is that it is not meant for, namely a still image codec. I hate the drama around it that Google has created. Because the stupid cunt that created AVIF is an emotional slime, he tried to block JPGXL, a competitor for AVIF, from having official support in the Google Chrome browser. And because Google Chrome is a monopoly in the browser market, CDNs and other people who'd like to use JPGXL, since it has significantly better all around features for still images, cannot use it now.
Features of JPEG-XL:
- better still image compression than AVIF
- lossless JPEG transcoding
- progressive image loading
- universally usable from capture to delivery
- layer support with 4,099 channels
- CMYK Compatible
- 32 bits per channel
- no limitations on image size or colour precision
And all of that is thrown away because one bastard has his feelings hurt by user choice.
Thank you for listening to my useless TED Talk.
Edit: While I sound extremely black-pilled about this, because monopolies are bad, the positive thing is that it's gaining traction, finally. Apple has fully embraced it some time ago. Now Microsoft Windows supports it natively as well. Literally the only missing piece is the browser. While Safari, thanks to Apple, - never thought I'd say that - now supports JPEG XL natively, Firefox and Google Chrome do not as of right now. So the browser is literally the last missing link for full native support. Also, I'd wish for the people at Mozilla to stop letting themselves be cucked by Google. But JPEG XL is around the corner, luckily, because sooner or later they will be forced to use the modern format to stay competitive, like Samsung already does for their phone cameras. Still salty about the attempt, though.
I converted most of my images to .jxl. It's been pretty nice.
-
I've tried all three! SVT flies in comparison to AOM on my 5800X.
Still playing around with ffmpeg settings, film grain synthesis and planning on properly checking out av1an.
I just love the codec so much, tiny bitrates but still beautiful. Then I learned .avif uses the same libraries as well and takes up like 1/10th of what my pngs do. (played around with webp/m before, pretty impressed with that as well..)
Wonderful stuffwrote last edited by [email protected]Same here, I wonder why SVT is not included with ffmpeg's standard compile flags. Licencing?
The era of decent full HD movies on CD has come, finally a use for all my CD-R spindles!
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with Krita
wrote last edited by [email protected]I tried AV1, but it seems to work really poorly for compressing film grain which is my main usecase (movies).
I realise you can add fake film grain, but that's not really my thing.
I'm sure it's great for video game footage or low grain modern video, but that's not what I need it for.
For now, I'll likely stick with x265.
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with KritaDisk is cheap, just make everything mpeg2.
-
I wonder how we're feeling for HEIC? Any drama/pros/cons I should know of? As AAPLs weight is behind, I wonder if we'll get browser wars for this decades' image formats.
HEIC faces a few struggles with adoption:
- It's patent encumbered.
- It's not free as in "free beer", someone has to pay for it.
- It's not free as in "free speech" - you can't use, modify, and distribute software or formats without restrictions due issue #1.
AV1 and AVIF don't have any of these issues –someone correct me if I'm wrong or missing something– so anyone is able to include/distribute the software and modify to their needs.
-
Disk is cheap, just make everything mpeg2.
bring back .3gp to share with your classmates
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with KritaNot only is everything smaller, but the codec looks better. Compression artifacts when AV1 is really pushing it at lower bitrates are more like... pointillism? They resemble grain instead of the fuzzy squares you can get with 264 or 265, and it is especially better in dark scenes.
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with KritaI did a comparison of AV1 vs h265 on a handful of video files I have in different styles. H265 seemed consistently better. AV1 just crushes the quality way too much.
-
Disk is cheap, just make everything mpeg2.
-
Not only is everything smaller, but the codec looks better. Compression artifacts when AV1 is really pushing it at lower bitrates are more like... pointillism? They resemble grain instead of the fuzzy squares you can get with 264 or 265, and it is especially better in dark scenes.
But it looks much worse at higher bitrates. H265 can get decent bitrates and have no visible difference from the original. AV1 loses a bunch of quality right out of the gate. If you are wanting to archive footage I think h265 is much better.
-
What if I offload it to my 487?
The 487 was just a full 486DX with a pin that told the motherboard to deactivate the soldered-on 486SX.
-
Somebody save my CPU.
made with KritaYou want the grippers? For free?
-
But it looks much worse at higher bitrates. H265 can get decent bitrates and have no visible difference from the original. AV1 loses a bunch of quality right out of the gate. If you are wanting to archive footage I think h265 is much better.
I don't disagree about archiving. Though for a local collection, I think the space savings of AV1 are worth it.
Especially for grainy footage, which is extra costly in h265. The noise analysis and synthesis in AV1 is killer, IMHO. But of course... it's not the same noise.
-
But it looks much worse at higher bitrates. H265 can get decent bitrates and have no visible difference from the original. AV1 loses a bunch of quality right out of the gate. If you are wanting to archive footage I think h265 is much better.
are you archiving it until the patents expire? I use AV1 because of the license
-
are you archiving it until the patents expire? I use AV1 because of the license
I’m not really worried about the licensing of the codec I use for my personal archive. Even if I was worried, I would use h264 or VP9 before I used AV1.
-
I tried AV1, but it seems to work really poorly for compressing film grain which is my main usecase (movies).
I realise you can add fake film grain, but that's not really my thing.
I'm sure it's great for video game footage or low grain modern video, but that's not what I need it for.
For now, I'll likely stick with x265.
I could be wrong, but isn't the idea that it removes the film grain to aid compressing the ""actual"" image behind the grain, and then the player adds the grain back in during playback?
The way you say it makes it sound like you want to compress the grain itself, and that sounds to me like a "I like the vinyl crackle in my digital media" take. Not that that's a bad thing, everyone has preferences, but it's also unlikely that AV1 (or any codec for that matter) was designed with the preservation of accurate film grain in mind.
