Browsers pushing AVIF media format?

mrk said:
No more sig size limits? When did that happen!
Click to expand...

The FAQ says a maximum of 90Kb* so I guess it's "effectively unlimited" because a 400x75 image won't be anywhere near that size unless you're using some stupid filetype.

*Or maybe the limits are ignored because almost everyone is breaking the rules? :p I guess it's just a typo but 90Kb (kilobits) is 11.25KB (kilobytes). I think Maccapacca is the only mod who has an image signature complying with the rules.
 
This comparison is kind of stupid, you need to look at high resolution images, when images are reduced to such low resolutions it masks details, and the original image here is a bit duff as it has obvious aliasing artefacts in it.

The problem users face is with large images not tiny ones in news articles, a 100kb reduction in a webpage makes no difference in the age of broadband.
 
Last edited:
Malevolence said:
I've started seeing loads of images that have a *.jfif extension. What's that all about?
Click to expand...
It's an old extension instead of .jpg, it appears a Windows 10 bug causes it.

As for AVIF, it's a welcome step forward for image standards, I just wish it was more widely adopted. Same with AV1. Less bits for the same image/video is good.
 
Monkeynut said:
It's an old extension instead of .jpg, it appears a Windows 10 bug causes it.

As for AVIF, it's a welcome step forward for image standards, I just wish it was more widely adopted. Same with AV1. Less bits for the same image/video is good.
Click to expand...
IIRC you need to edit the registry to get jpg back.
I've been hit by it about 3 times in the last year or so.
 
dLockers said:
What difference does it make?
Click to expand...
assume he meant if you want to keep/edit theimage you inadvertently get a poor copy


Monkeynut said:
As for AVIF, it's a welcome step forward for image standards, I just wish it was more widely adopted. Same with AV1. Less bits for the same image/video is good.
Click to expand...

Is AVIF demanding more cpu power/battery to decompress, which I thought was the AV1(as with hevc) game play, nothing is for free -
what are their carbon footprints.


touch said:
The FAQ says a maximum of 90Kb* so I guess it's "effectively unlimited" because a 400x75 image won't be anywhere near that size unless you're using some stupid filetype.
Click to expand...
don't people just (ublocko) block sites that are frequently used for signatures ?
yes might loose some useful content, but every little counts, to avoid filling up virtual memory/commit with junk.
 
Not heard of this until now.

Looking more closely at it using the page with adjustable compression levels, with a like for like file size, the quality is very good and gives a much better image than jpeg at 20kb.

I guess the issue isn't so much the format, but the level of compression used.

I don't care that much about the artefacts in an image that will only be viewed/consumed momentarily as I read a news page or browse an online store.

As you would expect, you can still definitely tell that detail is lost as the file size drops - it's just a question of using the right level for the use case.
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
Is AVIF demanding more cpu power/battery to decompress, which I thought was the AV1(as with hevc) game play, nothing is for free -
what are their carbon footprints.
Click to expand...

Given the die shrinking with all chips over time, no more in the long run than other formats. What's the carbon footprint of the extra storage & bandwidth needed for JPEG?
 
touch said:
It's nothing to do with your browser. The website you're visiting controls what content you get.
Click to expand...

Netflix started pushing for the adoption for AVIF format a couple of years back as they see the current JPEG format as being as outdated as Divx.

https://netflixtechblog.com/avif-for-next-generation-image-coding-b1d75675fe4

Google Chrome devs jumped aboard shortly after and recently other browsers such as Firefox and Mediaplayers such as VLC have now added support for AVIF so it does have everything to do with your browser if the industry is pushing the format and not Web Devs.
 
Ice Tea said:
Netflix started pushing for the adoption for AVIF format a couple of years back as they see the current JPEG format as being as outdated as Divx.

https://netflixtechblog.com/avif-for-next-generation-image-coding-b1d75675fe4

Google Chrome devs jumped aboard shortly after and recently other browsers such as Firefox and Mediaplayers such as VLC have now added support for AVIF so it does have everything to do with your browser if the industry is pushing the format and not Web Devs.
Click to expand...

Browsers are introducing support for it because it has many benefits and people want to use it.

But your browser is not forcing it on you. If you visit a website and you see an image in AVIF format it's because the web developer has chosen to show you that format - not because your browser is forcing it on you.
 
touch said:
Browsers are introducing support for it because it has many benefits and people want to use it.

But your browser is not forcing it on you. If you visit a website and you see an image in AVIF format it's because the web developer has chosen to show you that format - not because your browser is forcing it on you.
Click to expand...

No one said it was being forced , you seem to be having your own separate conversation?
 
Ice Tea said:
No one said it was being forced , you seem to be having your own separate conversation?
Click to expand...

I'm replying to the thread title. You say browsers are pushing the format but I say that web developers are free to use any format they want. If you see an AVIF image on a website, it's a decision made by a web developer not a browser developer.
 
touch said:
I'm replying to the thread title. You say browsers are pushing the format but I say that web developers are free to use any format they want. If you see an AVIF image on a website, it's a decision made by a web developer not a browser developer.
Click to expand...

Pushing as in moving forward and adding it's support to the current growing industry list , nothing to do with being forced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#AVIF_support
 
jpaul said:
Is AVIF demanding more cpu power/battery to decompress, which I thought was the AV1(as with hevc) game play, nothing is for free -
what are their carbon footprints.

.
Click to expand...
It's probably more than offset with the decrease in storage and bandwidth required, especially given how small they are and how fast the average CPU is now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom