While AV1 has high complexity and requires a lot more computation power to decode, AVIF picture is essentially just 1 Frame. At the bitrate used with Internet pictures, I would assume decoding power wouldn't be a problem even on Smartphone.<p>Cant wait to see how it compares to JPEG-XL.<p>I think we can forget about WebPv2 which is just VP9. I dont see its value when we have AVIF already.
This is awesome! Love the equal size comparison.
I've wrote a few years ago an article about BPG which also had support for animation - <a href="https://eek.ro/why-bpg-will-replace-gifs-and-not-only/" rel="nofollow">https://eek.ro/why-bpg-will-replace-gifs-and-not-only/</a><p>Does AVIF have any support for animations?<p>Glad to finally see an royalty-free format starting to get traction.
> 'Effort' 10 (which I used for images in this article) can take over 10 minutes to encode a single image.<p>Well, there's always a trade-off.
The WebP at near the same size as AVIF preserved more of the dark road texture, but for the more saturated parts the AVIF had more edge detail. I'd like to see more examples to see what types of detail/textures AVIF favors dropping vs line edge details it preserves.
Here's something related from the same author <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kYBnY6mwg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kYBnY6mwg</a> ("Image compression deep-dive")