libavif VS sharp

It's 2023, surely this is not yet another bug related to memory unsafety that could be avoided if we'd stop writing critical code that deals with extremely complex untrusted input (media codecs) in memory unsafe languages?

Yep, of course it is: https://github.com/webmproject/libwebp/commit/902bc919033134...

I guess libwebp could be excused as it was started when there were no alternatives, but even for new projects today we're still committing the same mistake[1][2][3].

[1] -- https://code.videolan.org/videolan/dav1d

[2] -- https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif

[3] -- https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libiamf

Yep. Keep writing these in C; surely nothing will go wrong.

As far as I understand you are talking about this plugin. I don't know c++ and half of the code was like a black magic, but if I get it correctly, it encodes your images with libavif, and adds custom metadata ([solar/time of day] -> json -> base64).

So a few dozen comments, but so far it doesn't look like any mention the immediate thing that jumped out at me which was the claims vs AVIF:

>"In turn, what users will be given is yet another facet of the web that Google itself controls: the AVIF format."

Huh? I'll admit I haven't been following codecs as super ultra closely as I used to, but I thought AOM was a pretty broad coalition of varying interests and AV1 an open, royalty free codec that was plenty open source friendly? I've heard plenty of reasonable arguments that JPEG XL has some real technical advantages over AVIF and as well as superior performance is much more feature rich and scalable. So I could see people being bummed for that. But this is the first time I've heard the assertion that it's somehow a Google project? I mean, AOM's libavif reference is BSD too [0]? I'd love some more details on that from anyone who has been following this more closely. I can even understand if AOM isn't as community friendly and an accusation that it's dominated by big corps, but in that case why single out Google alone? From wiki:

>The governing members of the Alliance for Open Media are Amazon, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Facebook, Google, Huawei, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Nvidia, Samsung Electronics and Tencent.

Like, Google is certainly significant, but that's a lot of equally heavy hitters. And interesting that Mozilla is there too.

----

0: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif

> You have a good point that AVIF layered image items can act like such P/B-frames. Do libavif (or other AVIF implementations if any) make use of them?

Seemingly. As search for "libavif progressive encoding" shows several issues about this, and a search for "progressive" in https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif/blob/main/include/av... shows an enum for avifProgressiveState, appears to show support for it.

I mean, it already has it: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif/commit/570c42c2c10a878c8cc896f1c5daf1a955274142

Apart from mpv and ffplay, the only software I currently have installed that can play animated AVIF is Chromium. And from what I've read from this libavif bug report, I'm not sure if looping animated files in general is something that's just done by default by a lot of software regardless of whether the file is marked as a loop or not.

The support for progressive AVIF decoding has landed in libavif and in Chromium. But are there any docs on how to create and test progressive AVIF images?

The "for example" is the key here, because AVIF does support multi-layer coding per the spec now (though not currently implemented in libavif from what I can tell).

libavif is at version 0.11.1, see https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif/tags

Last thing left is to use our new upload function in our server action. Since I like to upload images in single format and have some more control over them, I will additionally use sharp library. For file name, I'll generate some random string using nanoid:

blur is a technique to blur images while reducing the file size surprisingly. blur works by enlarging the pixels of the image, which reduces the details of the image, and the number of colors also decreases, thus saving storage space. Sharp is a popular image processing library in Node.js, and it supports the blur function. After going through the blur function, the image size at this point is only a few KB, which is reasonable for an image placeholder in the article.

sharp

For simplicity, I will be generating PNGs with JavaScript/Node and the Sharp image library. Any library that can convert between pixel arrays and image files will make the process quite straightforward.

There is also a library that Next.js itself uses: sharp. It can be setup as Node.js service. I even played around a little: image-proxy-service

Sharp Documentation: Link

ESLint does an amazing job in detecting floating promises. I've not had it miss one, ever. When adding this to a project, I've discovered multiple accidental bugs due to a missing "await" keyword--bugs that were extremely subtle and intermittent in many cases.

The only thing it can't do is determine that you actually did handle the promise later. Which is fine. It's a LINTING RULE, and false positives are the name of the game.

What's BAD is when you accidentally miss handling a promise at all. It's an invisible error without the linting rule.

Your other comments...don't even make sense. You're going to build a Lanczos filter by hand? Or you're only going to ... compile ImageMagick to WebAssembly?!, ... an implementation which is tremendously slower (nearly unusably so for large images) than that of Sharp:

https://www.npmjs.com/package/sharp

... which is simply an import away?

No, what you're doing is called "motivated reasoning." You've concluded that Deno is the best, and you're reinterpreting all of my complaints in convoluted ways to support your predetermined conclusion.

Standard fanboy behavior. Or troll behavior. I cite Poe's Law as why it's impossible to tell the difference.