While JPEG XL is awesome if measured with DSSIM, SSIMULACRA 2, Butteraugli or human viewers, JPEG XL is an average or bad codec if measured with AOM's current image quality metrics (MS-)SSIM, PSNR and VMAF(neg).
AOM's image quality group is not receptive to adding new image quality metrics. I proposed it, they told that they want to rather reduce the number of metrics, not increase.
To accept JPEG XL as an intraframe they would need to have political will for it -- to deviate from they usual image quality procedures.
JPEG XL seems to give an extra 10-15 % of density on average, but it cannot be measured using the current AOM processes. If it had been possible, they would have already based AV2 on JPEG XL keyframes instead of AV1 keyframes. They are hunting a lot of small improvements, even 1 % improvements, with substantial effort.
Comments
While JPEG XL is awesome if measured with DSSIM, SSIMULACRA 2, Butteraugli or human viewers, JPEG XL is an average or bad codec if measured with AOM's current image quality metrics (MS-)SSIM, PSNR and VMAF(neg).
AOM's image quality group is not receptive to adding new image quality metrics. I proposed it, they told that they want to rather reduce the number of metrics, not increase.
To accept JPEG XL as an intraframe they would need to have political will for it -- to deviate from they usual image quality procedures.
JPEG XL seems to give an extra 10-15 % of density on average, but it cannot be measured using the current AOM processes. If it had been possible, they would have already based AV2 on JPEG XL keyframes instead of AV1 keyframes. They are hunting a lot of small improvements, even 1 % improvements, with substantial effort.