[JyrkiAlakuijala]

The 'Large' is still relatively low quality -- you can observe this by 3x zooming and comparing to original.

You can easily see that AVIF blurs (beautifies faces) and removes properties of the red cloth in the 'end-of-show' image.

Internet average image quality is higher than the 'Large' setting, so those names are not representative of actual internet use. Camera and image processing use is even of much higher quality.

[cubefox]

No, I think Internet average quality is a lot lower than AVIF or JPEG XL at "large". Instead of using such a high bitrate to save a small amount quality, it makes much more sense to use a low bit rate with a significantly higher resolution, and end up with the same file size.

Even cameras often have relatively little detail per pixel, since they do interpolate a lot of information due to the usage of Bayer filters (which record only one primary color per pixel instead of full RGB values), and because anything with less than perfect lighting will be somewhat noisy and blurry anyway.

[JyrkiAlakuijala]

I made quite a bit of unpublished effort to understand the average quality. Web almanac media chapter is showing average jpeg bpp density. In my collection median quality as reported by image magic is 85 and roughly 2–2.5 BPP.