AVIF hasn’t been around much longer than JXL, has it? Only a year or so.
Since both of them are image formats, I assume that by ‘video’ you refer to animated images, in which case yes, AVIF (being based on an actual video codec) seems to perform better. Same with very low-quality pictures.
For higher quality JPEG XL still seems to do better, and seems to do much better for lossless encoding. (AVIF struggles to even compete with WebP on that front, if I recall correctly.) Not to mention very useful features like progressive decoding, lossless JPEG recompression, or no practical limit on image size.
Yes, AVIF is a thing, but why? Is it worth missing out on an actual full-fledged replacement by refitting yet another video codec into an image one in a rush? That’s just like acting before thinking and then going on to say “oh well, what’s done is done”. And perhaps there’s nothing we can do about it, but it’s still irritating.
On web. Outside web the situation is more complex. iirc many camera manufacturers push HEIC, some editing software prefer JXL, and AVIF is kinda around too.
Since both of them are image formats, I assume that by ‘video’ you refer to animated images, in which case yes, AVIF (being based on an actual video codec) seems to perform better. Same with very low-quality pictures.
For higher quality JPEG XL still seems to do better, and seems to do much better for lossless encoding. (AVIF struggles to even compete with WebP on that front, if I recall correctly.) Not to mention very useful features like progressive decoding, lossless JPEG recompression, or no practical limit on image size.
Yes, AVIF is a thing, but why? Is it worth missing out on an actual full-fledged replacement by refitting yet another video codec into an image one in a rush? That’s just like acting before thinking and then going on to say “oh well, what’s done is done”. And perhaps there’s nothing we can do about it, but it’s still irritating.