Lack of interest Are we gonna see support for AVIF?

[Pepelepew]

As the title says, are wee gonna see compatibility for AVIF image files for xenforo

 

[Deleted member 184953]

Since 2014 users ask the same for Webp

Implemented - Google WebP Support

This would an amazing enhancement for attachments, especially for sites that use many large pictures. WebP is a new image format that provides lossless and lossy compression for images on the web. WebP lossless images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNGs. WebP lossy images are 25-34% smaller...

xenforo.com

We can continue to dream...

 

[Chris D]

Unfortunately with new image formats we're constrained by what is supported by the GD library in PHP.

Admittedly we're a bit behind with WebP - though EXIF support to detect WebP image types wasn't added until PHP 7.1 - but AVIF isn't supported in the GD library at all until PHP 8.1. And that's not even released yet.

There may be scope for us to do version conditional stuff or make certain image type handling exclusive to Imagick (again, if a new enough version is available) but we haven't done to this point.

WebP might be more feasible in the near future...

And as @Jeremy P has just pointed out to me, Safari doesn't even support it yet. I know there are fallbacks to do with <picture> and <source> tags but that's a whole different problem

Oh and no Chromium Edge support either which is bizarre considering it is supported by Chrome.

 

[digitalpoint]

First things first... WebP is a more realistic option for the time being (from both browser support and server requirements). AVIF would be great, but WebP would be much easier (for now).

AVIF doesn't have enough browser support that I'd even want users uploading it without fallback options (which makes things more complicated even if server requirements were there).

AVIF image format | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc

caniuse.com

WebP is getting to the point that it could be viable without fallback complexities.

WebP image format | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc

caniuse.com

 

[Kirby]

Once browsers fully support (currently experimental) JPEG XL, this might be a better choice than AVIF - it has similar compression compared to AVIF but seems to have more features (especially progressive images).

How JPEG XL Compares to Other Image Codecs

Learn the background of the JPEG XL image codec, its advantages, and the current status of its standardization process at the JPEG Committee.

cloudinary.com

1178058 - chromium - An open-source project to help move the web forward. - Monorail

bugs.chromium.org

 

[Lukas W.]

And as @Jeremy P has just pointed out to me, Safari doesn't even support it yet. I know there are fallbacks to do with <picture> and <source> tags but that's a whole different problem

I think at some point we'll have to stop pleasing ancient legacy applications if we want to make progress. Webp support can be detected both client and server side, and then a fallback png version could be sent, or the browser could load a webp polyfill. Png images could also be temporarily stored instead of permanently to not have to store two versions of images that are never opened by legacy applications. Additionally XenForo could show a (dismissible) message that educates users to switch their browser.

Sitting problems like this out just doesn't solve them, and hitting modern browsers with the higher load rather than older ones doesn't seem useful to me. Browsers that support webp are in the majority, so they should receive the preferential treatment rather than take the backseat to be nice to their ancient forgotten brethren.

That aside, anyone who's using the $10/month or higher plan of cloudflare can turn on the on-the-fly conversion and cloudflare will store and send webp versions of your images to all clients that support it. It's not avif, but it's better than nothing.

 

[Chris D]

I think at some point we'll have to stop pleasing ancient legacy applications if we want to make progress.

Safari is hardly an ancient legacy application. It literally has new versions coming out in the coming weeks on both iOS and macOS. Unfortunately, neither have AVIF support. Sadly if one of the most prominent browsers (more prominent than Firefox, even) doesn't support a particular standard then that's significant.

Webp support can be detected both client and server side, and then a fallback png version could be sent, or the browser could load a webp polyfill. Png images could also be temporarily stored instead of permanently to not have to store two versions of images that are never opened by legacy applications. Additionally XenForo could show a (dismissible) message that educates users to switch their browser.

Valid points potentially regarding support but, come on, we can't tell people using iOS to "switch their browser". They literally can't.

But none of this changes the fact that up to a point we literally had no server-side support for manipulating even WebP files, and the same will be true for AVIF for years to come.

Things will change for WebP at least sooner than AVIF. Browser support was a huge factor for WebP and, thankfully, that's no longer a significant concern.

 

[briansol]

offline viewing remains a concern of mine.

people come to the site, save a file, and then they can't open it on the file system (without opening it in a browser).

Do other apps like google photos, amazon photos, apps for the phones like gallery, etc support webp or avif? I feel like that's an important aspect above just hosting the image.

 

[Chris D]

macOS can open webp files in Preview, but not avif files.

 

[Lukas W.]

Safari is hardly an ancient legacy application. It literally has new versions coming out in the coming weeks on both iOS and macOS.

Probably my sentiment that made me exaggerate a bit, but them generally lagging behind everyone else is sad and frustrating. But as long as everyone just buckles for them and does their bidding, I guess they can keep their pace like they want.

Unfortunately, neither have AVIF support. Sadly if one of the most prominent browsers (more prominent than Firefox, even) doesn't support a particular standard then that's significant.

Significant of course, and a justifiable case for a workaround/alternative, but holding back improvements that 65% of the web could vastly benefit from (in the example of avif) seems weird. I know that for avif this is somewhat a moot point given the backend considerations, but this stretches into all sorts of fields (and also isn't exclusively limited to XenForo of course, this mindset change would need to happen everywhere, but needs to start somewhere, so why not with industry leaders).

But none of this changes the fact that up to a point we literally had no server-side support for manipulating even WebP files, and the same will be true for AVIF for years to come.

Both webp and avif have binaries that can be compiled to run on at least Windows and Linux, which should cover at least the vast majority of servers. You probably have a better indicator if that's sufficient from the stats you collect.

 

[digitalpoint]

Both webp and avif have binaries that can be compiled to run on at least Windows and Linux, which should cover at least the vast majority of servers. You probably have a better indicator if that's sufficient from the stats you collect.

I’d say it’s better suited to get AVIF supported in PHP before trying to support it with custom compiled binaries. Seems that would be a support nightmare for something like XenForo if customers needed to get through compiling and installing binaries. Most people don’t have their own servers and instead are running on a stack provided by a web hosting company (so they couldn’t install custom compiled binaries on their server even if they wanted to).

I’d say WebP could be supported by XenForo fairly soon. AVIF could be fun, but probably better done by a third party addon for the time being.

 

[Lukas W.]

Seems that would be a support nightmare for something like XenForo if customers needed to get through compiling and installing binaries. Most people don’t have their own servers and instead are running on a stack provided by a web hosting company (so they couldn’t install custom compiled binaries on their server even if they wanted to).

Depending on the binaries, it could either be just shipped with the software, or you make it part of an advanced package like Enhanced Search. I don't want to demand a solution here, there's of course a lot to consider. I just want to say there's ways to make it work, and sites would hugely benefit from this being available in one form or another.

 

[digitalpoint]

Depending on the binaries, it could either be just shipped with the software, or you make it part of an advanced package like Enhanced Search. I don't want to demand a solution here, there's of course a lot to consider. I just want to say there's ways to make it work, and sites would hugely benefit from this being available in one form or another.

Like I said, AVIF would be fun... but I'd put my money on it not being a thing in XenForo until PHP and browsers support it. Shipping binaries wouldn't be a realistic/viable solution because the same web hosting companies that don't allow customers to compile/install binaries also don't let them execute binaries. Web hosting environments are typically pretty sandboxed so customers can't screw up their servers (hell, if you could just arbitrarily execute your own binaries with a web hosting company, why not just run cryptocurrency mining binaries?)

For someone that really wants to be on the bleeding edge with AVIF, the good news is that XenForo is hugely extensible. Like you could just extend the existing XenForo Image classes and support AVIF without too much difficulty (once you have a way for the server to handle it).

 

[Chris D]

Depending on the binaries, it could either be just shipped with the software, or you make it part of an advanced package like Enhanced Search. I don't want to demand a solution here, there's of course a lot to consider. I just want to say there's ways to make it work, and sites would hugely benefit from this being available in one form or another.

There's always ways to make something work. That doesn't make it a good idea. On this and similar things we will almost certainly wait as long as we need to in order to ensure we can provide a consistent experience, without workarounds and fallbacks, and without potentially complicated additional software requirements.

We also need to be realistic about diminishing returns:



As Shawn mentions there's little to stop us at this point in implementing WebP and that gives us a significant saving as it is. To then go and jump through a load of other hoops that not even every customer can or will want to implement (or benefit from) which adds much more complexity to the software in order to save a few extra KB, that's just not a sensible use of time.

 

[Lukas W.]

I'm fine with webp support out of the box. With a good framework in place to handle serving additional types and fallbacks, extending it will be the least of my worries.

 

[eva2000]

Just to add my input, webP support would suffice for now. I've tried webP vs AVIF on various images, tools and services i.e. Cloudflare Image/Resize for AVIF/webP and there are still enough cases where AVIF image is actually larger than webP for it to be less than ideal. Just converting some avatars to various formats and see AVIF doesn't always result in smaller images than webP

The original 1.jpg and 2.jpg are actually PNG images in below example.

./xf-avatar-optimizer.sh list
nginx  nginx  982     Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/2.webp
nginx  nginx  1629    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  4128    Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  4625    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  4648    Jan  22  23:32  /data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg
nginx  nginx  1437    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/2.avif
nginx  nginx  570     Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/1.webp
nginx  nginx  730     Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  1488    Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  1788    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  1809    Jan  17  11:52  /data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg
nginx  nginx  1007    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/s/0/1.avif
nginx  nginx  9546    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/2.webp
nginx  nginx  25234   Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/2.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  112717  Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/o/0/2.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  127125  Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/2.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  127102  Jan  22  23:32  /data/avatars/o/0/2.jpg
nginx  nginx  9407    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/2.avif
nginx  nginx  1142    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/1.webp
nginx  nginx  1169    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/1.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  2065    Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/o/0/1.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  2092    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/1.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  2087    Jan  17  11:52  /data/avatars/o/0/1.jpg
nginx  nginx  1270    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/o/0/1.avif
nginx  nginx  2184    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/2.webp
nginx  nginx  3542    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/2.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  12178   Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/m/0/2.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  13601   Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/2.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  13634   Jan  22  23:32  /data/avatars/m/0/2.jpg
nginx  nginx  2672    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/2.avif
nginx  nginx  934     Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/1.webp
nginx  nginx  1232    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/1.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  3351    Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/m/0/1.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  4193    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/1.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  4214    Jan  17  11:52  /data/avatars/m/0/1.jpg
nginx  nginx  1448    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/m/0/1.avif
nginx  nginx  4592    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/2.webp
nginx  nginx  8683    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/2.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  36771   Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/l/0/2.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  41347   Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/2.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  41411   Jan  22  23:32  /data/avatars/l/0/2.jpg
nginx  nginx  5042    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/2.avif
nginx  nginx  1734    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/1.webp
nginx  nginx  2512    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/1.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  7403    Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/l/0/1.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  9375    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/1.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  9410    Jan  17  11:52  /data/avatars/l/0/1.jpg
nginx  nginx  2408    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/l/0/1.avif
nginx  nginx  9694    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/2.webp
nginx  nginx  23463   Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/2.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  110569  Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/h/0/2.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  124695  Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/2.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  124820  Jan  22  23:32  /data/avatars/h/0/2.jpg
nginx  nginx  9318    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/2.avif
nginx  nginx  3972    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/1.webp
nginx  nginx  3802    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/1.jpg.pngquant
nginx  nginx  11459   Jan  23  09:04  /data/avatars/h/0/1.jpg.optipng
nginx  nginx  13184   Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/1.jpg.opt
nginx  nginx  13218   Jan  17  11:52  /data/avatars/h/0/1.jpg
nginx  nginx  4580    Jan  23  22:41  /data/avatars/h/0/1.avif

Actually, there's a lot of savings just converting lossless PNGs to lossy PNGs too (pngquant ones above) !