| ▲ | theandrewbailey 5 hours ago | |
It's great that Chrome is shipping JPEGXL. AVIF is still better at 1 bit per pixel and less. (JPEGXL is more efficient at more than that.) Is it possible for JPEGXL to beat that? | ||
| ▲ | adrian_b an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
I do not know if JPEG XL is competitive with AVIF for very compressed images, because that is mostly a concern for those who want to host at a minimum cost Web pages with embedded images. I assume that AVIF must be better for that purpose. On the other hand, AVIF cannot compete with JPEG XL for high-quality photographs, which is something much more important for me, because it is a format suitable for storing my own photographs and it is a format that would make me appreciate positively a Web site that would have beautiful images in this format. | ||
| ▲ | gcr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
That isn’t my experience. I tried compressing conference proceedings into thumbnails with tiny file size and for this purpose I found that JPEGXL is far better than AVIF | ||