Unfortunately for the comparison-focused blog post the comparison widgets is pretty bad - you can't quickly compare 2 reference pictures (original vs AVIF or original vs JXL) at different scalings like here https://web.archive.org/web/20200915201019/https://afontenot...

(also like the BPP size metric that is picture size-independent)

Wish that widget with improvements (that allows comparison of 3 pics with 3 buttons: original/codec1/codec2) were the widespread standard (also, "hold" is a rather unergonomic action)

Otherwise, seems like AVIF has had impressive gains in both speed and quality, wonder whether JXL could catch up

▲

networked 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For a moment I was sad the original comparison page was gone. It turns out it is still online under the developer's new GitHub username: https://lmfont.github.io/image-formats-comparison/#abandoned....

	▲	eviks 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks! Was also sad, but it's "just" linkrot, will update bookmarks

▲

jaffathecake 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Offering different scalings is pointless because they're designed for a single largest size.

▲

eviks 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But they won't be viewed at different sizes? But even then, the point is in making detection of artifacts easier

	▲	jaffathecake an hour ago \| parent [-]
		As someone putting an image on a web page, why would I make detection of artifacts easier? The images in the article max out at the maximum size I'd want them displayed.