[normhead]

Switching to a new file format may retain the same quality as a jpeg but at half the file size... that's what's in it for you.

I never invest in "may" type promises. And I can't find any numbers. The Netflix page looks like marketing hype to me. Until you know exactly what the savings will be, how can you even evaluate whether or not it will be worth your while?

[FozzFoster]

I never invest in "may" type promises. And I can't find any numbers. The Netflix page looks like marketing hype to me. Until you know exactly what the savings will be, how can you even evaluate whether or not it will be worth your while?

I used the word 'may' in this context in a similar way as saying "Pentax cameras may be used to take landscape photos"...
New image containers 'may' retain image quality at smaller files sizes.
Apple has invested heavily into the new format.
Storage on the iPhone in a major complaint and having more efficient files sizes is a great solution (especially with indiscernible quality differences).
I don't think such a company would do that if it was not, indeed, worth their while.

---------- Post added 08-18-20 at 10:15 AM ----------

Also, wouldn't it be terribly easy to implement multiple saving options? HEIF, JPEG, RAW (.DNG; .PEF), and RAW+...

[acoufap]

More solutions in search of a problem. PNG was only necessary because Unisys was trying to enforce its LZW patent. And that expired 14 years ago.

PNG is a different story compared to JPG - lossless compression and transparency are major very important differences. I'd say it's mostly a format for graphics design.

[normhead]

I used the word 'may' in this context in a similar way as saying "Pentax cameras may be used to take landscape photos"...
New image containers 'may' retain image quality at smaller files sizes.
Apple has invested heavily into the new format.
Storage on the iPhone in a major complaint and having more efficient files sizes is a great solution (especially with indiscernible quality differences).
I don't think such a company would do that if it was not, indeed, worth their while.

You just killed the format. You said "Apple did it." Rabid PC enthusiasts just coughed bringing vomit up into their throats.

Apple is in a unique position in that they can introduce a format independent of everyone else. They control the whole process, from image capture to image storage to image display. Some very good Apple tech. never made it to the world of PCs.

For me, the issue will be, if Apple goes all in, I probably have to switch, whether I want to or not. But, Apple tends to make these things seamless. I may not even notice if they are out front of this, as long flicker gets on board. I would think for a company like Flickr, it would probably be worth their while to do a mass conversion to the new format, just for the savings in server costs, if the savings actually pan out to be what they say they are.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-18-2020 at 09:30 AM.

[ThorSanchez]

I used the word 'may' in this context in a similar way as saying "Pentax cameras may be used to take landscape photos"...
New image containers 'may' retain image quality at smaller files sizes.
Apple has invested heavily into the new format.
Storage on the iPhone in a major complaint and having more efficient files sizes is a great solution (especially with indiscernible quality differences).
I don't think such a company would do that if it was not, indeed, worth their while.

---------- Post added 08-18-20 at 10:15 AM ----------

Also, wouldn't it be terribly easy to implement multiple saving options? HEIF, JPEG, RAW (.DNG; .PEF), and RAW+...

Yea, Apple would never come up with a new proprietary Apple-only requirement and impose it on all of their customers for little or no obvious benefit outside of Apple making money.

[FozzFoster]

Apple would never come up with a new proprietary Apple-only requirement and impose it on all of their customers for little or no obvious benefit outside of Apple making money.

Apple didn't invent HEIF format. It's used across many different brands. They don't impose it either, it's selectable feature in the settings..
I don't see how it makes Apple any more money either, it's a benefit for the customer to save more images on the device, Apple would probably want customers to use their cloud based server when the device fills up instead..

I honestly don't understand the push-back on a high efficiency file format that retains quality... (???)

[normhead]

Apple didn't invent HEIF format. It's used across many different brands. They don't impose it either, it's selectable feature in the settings..
I don't see how it makes Apple any more money either, it's a benefit for the customer to save more images on the device, Apple would probably want customers to use their cloud based server when the device fills up instead..

I honestly don't understand the push-back on a high efficiency file format that retains quality... (???)

My camera doesn't support it, my photo editor doesn't support it, storage is cheap. But it's the kind of making money I believe in for corporations. If they can make more money with a better product and some of the savings gets back to me, I don't care if they get rich. That's the way capitalism is supposed to work. They save a lot of people little bit of money and they keep some of the money saved for themselves. Way to often it's companies wanting more money for the same old thing. There are entire industries, like cable TV that capitalize on selling product that used to be available for free. That's the opposite.

[slartibartfast01]

Apple didn't invent HEIF format. It's used across many different brands. They don't impose it either, it's selectable feature in the settings..
I don't see how it makes Apple any more money either, it's a benefit for the customer to save more images on the device, Apple would probably want customers to use their cloud based server when the device fills up instead..

I honestly don't understand the push-back on a high efficiency file format that retains quality... (???)

This article suggests the quality is not as good as jpegs. It is from 2017 though.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/04/watch-heif-vs-jpeg-on-iphone-8-compared

[normhead]

Yea, Apple would never come up with a new proprietary Apple-only requirement and impose it on all of their customers for little or no obvious benefit outside of Apple making money.

No other company would ever do that given a choice.

The groans of the lower level service manufacturers companies complaining because Apple does what they never do. When you have a problem with Apple product you never get the "it's the software - it's the hardware" run around. It's their hardware, if you run their software it works, no compatibility issues, no run around. PC dudes are still jealous, and still trotting out the old "I'm so smart and have so much free time I can do anything I could do on an Apple." I don't have to be smart or have the time to mess around. I still have 10 year old machines, running flawlessly that have never had a maintenance or tech support issue

Your bias is showing...

[automorphism]

Apple didn't invent HEIF format. It's used across many different brands. They don't impose it either, it's selectable feature in the settings..

It is definitely imposed. It is turned on by default. A photographer friend of mine says that people come into his store unable to print using print machines because HEIF is the default. While it can be turned off, many people just don't realize this so for them it is effectively imposed.

I'm not enthused about the new format. Saving some space is pretty much the only advantage. Sure, HEIF can support higher bit images, perhaps useful for "HDR screens", but the whole point of that is to make all existing screens obsolete so people have to buy a bunch of new ones at the cost of the environment. It sickens me.

[Wheatfield]

There are costs associated with adopting new standards. What would it cost, say PentaxPhotoGallery, to convert all of the JPEG's to some other format? How long would it take. So Flicker, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook/Instagram would change all of their images? How about Getty, Shutterstock etc. The costs associated with conversion might be small, but the time to do it would be enormous and time is money. Cameras will still save images as JPEG's for a long - long time.

Would all the present images in those galleries need to be reformatted or would it be sufficient to merely adopt support for new imaging formats?
Right now, the internet is primarily JPEG, with the occasional PNG file tossed in. I don't think it matters to the casual consumer of images what the format is, as long as it can be parsed by their browser.
Most web browsing these days is hit and run stuff being done on smallish cell phone screens.
Consequently, I don't think the file format that internet images are packaged in makes all that much difference. The average user isn't aware, and certainly doesn't care. All they care about is that they get their daily dose of Grumpy Cat delivered to their screen in time for morning coffee break.

[normhead]

It is definitely imposed. It is turned on by default. A photographer friend of mine says that people come into his store unable to print using print machines because HEIF is the default. While it can be turned off, many people just don't realize this so for them it is effectively imposed.

I'm not enthused about the new format. Saving some space is pretty much the only advantage. Sure, HEIF can support higher bit images, perhaps useful for "HDR screens", but the whole point of that is to make all existing screens obsolete so people have to buy a bunch of new ones at the cost of the environment. It sickens me.

True. MY 55 4k TV support jpeg. But as mentioned batch file conversion is usually pretty simple as long as you have a few old computers around that you can use to do the conversions. As for your friend, how difficult would it be for him to convert those files? Does he want the business or doesn't he?

[Wheatfield]

How many folks are going to send in their camera to have it converted (if that's even possible) or buy a new camera just to get the new compression standard when the current JPEG can offer pretty good pictures (really good at the higher JPEG settings) and is embedded in all sorts of photo devices currently in existence? The size of memories has increased dramatically (I just bought a 256GB SD card for $20) and limited memory was one driving force for better compression methods so there is not much reason other than sending lots of imagery over the net or storing it in the "cloud" to have anything better.

I haven't moved away from mp3 (though I still favor wav from a purest standpoint) and most people won't move away from jpg unless they are forced to do so (could be a real tough sell).

I would say this new compression method will have niche uses but we won't see it replacing or even challenging JPEG any time soon.

I wouldn't send my camera (or phone) away, but I would install a firmware update, presuming there were other compelling reasons than coding for a new file format that I was unlikely to use. Cell phone users would, of course, get a push update and would have little choice. I expect they would have little care either.

[FozzFoster]

While it can be turned off, many people just don't realize this so for them it is effectively imposed.

You only hear about people who fall off the trampolines... never hear about the countless people who just had plain jumping fun...

JPEG is the default on new dSLRs, RAW being a selectable feature... is JPEG being imposed on dSLRs?

Saving space is a huge advantage, if the only. And if not HEIF format, then another could/should take it's place...

[Wheatfield]

It is definitely imposed. It is turned on by default. A photographer friend of mine says that people come into his store unable to print using print machines because HEIF is the default. While it can be turned off, many people just don't realize this so for them it is effectively imposed.

I'm not enthused about the new format. Saving some space is pretty much the only advantage. Sure, HEIF can support higher bit images, perhaps useful for "HDR screens", but the whole point of that is to make all existing screens obsolete so people have to buy a bunch of new ones at the cost of the environment. It sickens me.

Thanks for pointing that out. I just bought my wife an iPhone 11. I will have to see what she has it set to for image saving.