IMO AVIF works really well at making convincing looking results at really high compression ratios, it’s worse at pretty much everything else.
And occasionally the ‘convincing looking’ results aren’t actually very accurate to the original image…
But those results really do look very convincing.
And IMO one of the most compelling features of JPEG-XL is its’ great lossless compression, although it is generally good all-around. AVIF is pretty terrible at lossless compression, usually well-behind WebP and only a bit better than PNG.
Anyways, for photos, if you want to compress them a ton then maybe AVIF is best, but if you want high quality JXL is probably best.
IMO AVIF works really well at making convincing looking results at really high compression ratios, it’s worse at pretty much everything else.
And occasionally the ‘convincing looking’ results aren’t actually very accurate to the original image…
But those results really do look very convincing.
And IMO one of the most compelling features of JPEG-XL is its’ great lossless compression, although it is generally good all-around. AVIF is pretty terrible at lossless compression, usually well-behind WebP and only a bit better than PNG.
Anyways, for photos, if you want to compress them a ton then maybe AVIF is best, but if you want high quality JXL is probably best.
I think https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-and-the-pareto-front is a good comparison