JPEG XL could be twice as efficient as AVIF everywhere, and every blog on the internet could benchmark it, and I suspect it still wouldn't make a difference.
Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL, at which point I hope everyone starts getting angry that format isn't included in browsers... (actually VVC intra should be at that performance level today, not that it has any chance of becoming the basis of a web image format...)
- slow power hungry encoding
- slow decoding (though this has gotten better very quickly)
- terrible lossless performance
- no lossless path from jpeg like jxl.
- no support for "exotic" formats like > 12 bpc or many extra channels.
Saying avif should be the only format is like saying everyone should depreciate png and just use jpeg. It doesn't cover all use cases, though frankly I am getting sick of slow pngs.
Because it won’t be just the web that uses JPEG. However whoever wins the support of the web will become THE universal image format for the foreseeable future.
> Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL, at which point I hope everyone starts getting angry that format isn't included in browsers...
That’s the thing. Once a format has become THE standard it won’t be replaced for a very long time. Might as well get the best bang for buck and pick the best standard that’s availability now.
Yes. Considering HEIC surpassingly did outperform AV1 and JPEG-XL in most of the benchmarks. You can expect VVC intra to be even better.
>Give it another couple years and maybe we'll have another format 5-10% better than JXL
Well yes. That is on the assumption everyone will settle on AVIF because that 10% is comparing to AV1. That wasn't true until Apple made the move. And AVIF, or AV1 the codec in general likes to remove details. So I would argue it isn't even a great image codec in the first place until it is fixed ( which the AOM has no intention of improving ).
The good thing ( or bad thing ) about JPEG XL is that they have now port some of the improvement to existing JPEG via JPEGLI, which gives ~10-15% improvement depending on image type without breaking compatibilities. This improvement on JPEG alone means the next generation replacement codec needs to be much better for it to be meaningful.
This isn't true if you're talking about encoding size efficiency. See the "Quality" chart at https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html
Even JPEG XL cheerleader Cloudinary says, "JPEG XL can obtain 10 to 15% better compression than AVIF" overall, which isn't a sufficient incremental benefit. https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl
Not to mention JPEG XL can do lossless and progressive on top, and that avifenc is much slower than cjxl.