pure shit
I prefer 1k times jpeg over this shit
You fags would call WEBM a shit format if 4chan only supported MP4
>>108743294webm is a container, retard
>>108743480It's also a format, retard
Is it my turn to post this now?>80 = very high quality. Distortion not noticeable by an average observer in a side-by-side comparison at 1:1 from a normal viewing distance. This corresponds to the typical output of cjxl -d 1.5 / -q 85 or libjpeg-turbo 4:2:2 quality 85.https://github.com/cloudinary/ssimulacra2File size: 254 KB (~29% smaller than JPG)https://files.catbox.moe/ptvr88.avif--sharpyuv -s 6 -q 72 -d 10 -y 420 --cicp 1/13/1 -a tune=iqFile size: 284 KB (~20% smaller than JPG)https://files.catbox.moe/isrw29.jxl-q 91 -e 7 --override_bitdepth=10
https://aomedia.org/blog%20posts/Libavif_v1_4_0-Boasts-Major-Updates-to-Encoder-Technology/AVIF WONJPEG CUC_KS LOSTOP IS FAGGOT
>>108743503It's a castrated mkv that carries VP8/9 video and opus/vorbis audio, retard.
>>108745080Let's take a look at what the official WebM Project website says
>>108745101fucking kill yourself
>>108745164I've said it's both a container and a formatOr are you saying the official WebM Project is lying?
>>108745460Fucking kill yourself, retard. The retarded shitstain, probably (You), made a retarded comparison with webm and mp4 (both containers). If the video stream is the same in different containers, it doesn't matter for the visual quality or size.It would've made sense if you compared VP9 to H264 for example.Take the L and fuck off.
>>108745571So you're saying you think you know better than the actual WebM development team
>>108745620I'm saying that you're a retarded shitstain.Look up what a container and audio/video streams are.The "media format" on the webm front page is for brainlets who get confused by "dufficult" terms like video streams and media containters.I've already postes a screen of the webm jewpedia page.Instead of arguing take the L and do some reading.
>>108745707Ok, but the WebM Project team calls it a format
>>108745859The creator of gif calls it jif and he'll still go straight to hell when he meets God and call him Jod.
>>108744005And now when the source is a JPEG?
Every site that runs AVIF files run like shit. Already reason enough to ban their usage.
>>108746419https://files.catbox.moe/5gvirl.avifJPG filesize was reduced by about 75% and achieved ~90 SS2 (ie visually lossless).>>108746489Yup but that's because AVIF is dead without hardware accelerated decoding, I as an "AVIF shill" will fully admit to this problem. It's not widespread yet and there is a possible future where manufacturers opt not to adopt AVIF hardware accelerated decoding (despite costing $0) and if that does happen then AVIF will become another blunder like Jpeg XL.
>>108746736Personally I really don't give a shit about these format wars, that said I think AVIF might be fucked due to no fault of its own just because of terribly bad timing. AVIF hardware support hasn't been around for long and people have been increasingly hesitant to upgrade working parts like a GPU unless forced to since before covid. We finally have hardware support for AVIF on paper but very few people actually have any GPUs new enough to feature the hardware de/encoder and looking at the global economic outlook I have a feeling that isn't going to change anytime soon.
>>108746779You should, what else are you gonna do with your free time, binge watch some bland anime show someone told you about just because it has some cute scenes in it? But seriously, it can save you storage space and make things look better since JPG/Webp is limited to 8-bit even though the whole world is pretty much moving onto 10-bit displays by now...See because AVIF is a "video codec pretending to be an image codec" there's no need for a dedicated piece of hardware for it, it can just piggy back off AV1 video decoding. That means that pretty much any intel/AMD/Nvidia GPU in the last few years can hardware decode AVIF just fine. Not that you could really need to when modern desktop CPUs can decode AVIF at like 100 megapixels per second...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Hardware_encoding_and_decoding_supportThe REAL problem is low end devices don't have AV1/AVIF hardware decoding. Think $80 Fire HD 8, $80 Moto G Play, $80 intel N4000 chromebook, etc etc. None of those cheap mass produced options (ie hundreds of millions out in use) have hardware AV1/AVIF decoding yet. When those things load AVIF images poorfags cry out in pain en masse. If that doesn't change then AVIF really could fizzle out like Jpeg XL and the only alternative left is we have to put up with Webp...
>>108742889Don't summon hi-^^^Welp.
>>108747209There's nothing else good on 4chan right now. What are you gonna do, go on the latest "happening!" who?? twitter screen shart (half of them fake too), "AI! AI! AI!" recycled shit, apple circlejerking thread, etc? We're here for the same reason but you're too uptight to admit it and cope with it by doing a kneejerk "you're daiz!" daily derailment attempts. Like can you at least admit that this is a shit ass thread made by an OP that has shit for brains? If instead of an AVIF logo it had a JXL logo you'd mad, right?
>>108746736You answered wrong - and misleadingly. JPEG-XL losslessly recompresses JPEG images.>ss2I don't care about visually lossless. JXL converts back and forth between the original JPEG 100% losslessly.THEY INVENTED FUCKING FLAC FOR LOSSY IMAGE AND DAIZ STILL THINKS INTERFRAME VIDEO CODECS HAVE ANY PLACE BEING USED AS FUCKING IMAGE CODECS.
>>108748086C'mon man, let's be honest, most people don't give a shit. bit-exact lossless image transfers are a neat little trick for autists like you and me but for the average joe? He couldn't give less of a fuck. All they care about is that X is smaller and doesn't look like ass.That's what ~90 SS2 achieves.>90 = visually lossless. Distortion not noticeable by an average observer in a flicker test at 1:1 from a normal viewing distance. This corresponds to the typical output of cjxl -d 0.5 / -q 95 or libjpeg-turbo 4:4:4 quality 95.https://github.com/cloudinary/ssimulacra2
>>108748124Why aren't you providing the lossless JXL result?
>>108748319Because it's not 75% smaller than than the JPG?
>>108748324I beat every .JPG on my computer over the head with JXL and instantly halved the space used with 0 actual loss of data. And I can still decode them on toasters. AVIF can't, and will never be able, to do that.
>>108748334>And I can still decode them on toasters.Source?
>>108744005>>108744086>>108746907>>108748375why do you change your tripcode and post without it, daiz?https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108545582/#108563559
>>108744005So its diaz that makes all thse webms that just make black screens?
video frame infinitely looping while pretending to be a image format is like a man pretending to be a woman
>>108745859Containers and formats are the same thing. What you're calling a format is a actually a codec, which WebM is not.
