[bobmaxja]

I was reading today that JPEG has a new challenger in the name of AVIF and start to be embedded in many web application and program. Seem to be better after reading this long text at Netflix. If some of you are have better knowledge or want to comment , you are welcome. I am curious of the different opinion . They are taking about photos in the section of Visual examples.
https://netflixtechblog.com/avif-for-next-generation-image-coding-b1d75675fe4
Quite a lot of talk also when you googleit

[Adam]

I guess it will ultimately depend on adoption. It appears that if bandwidth / filesize isn't a concern, then the difference in quality isn't significant- and the compression level coming out of DSLRs is quite low.

[Paul the Sunman]

Inertia is a powerful thing.

[maw]

If some of you are have better knowledge or want to comment , you are welcome.

There is the Jpeg2000 that hasn't caught on, technically better than the Jpeg but slightly heavier for the computers of 2000 (!), now we are in 2020...
Then there is another web format that seems to catch on, the Google WebP with about 30% smaller than PNG or JPEG files with the same image quality.
I think the real obstacle is the producers who have huge interests in favouring one format or the other. Don't you think?

Ciao Mario

[Gray]

An analogy: MP3 and FLAC/WAV are to JPEG and RAW/DNG/TIFF despite the best efforts of Apple, Microsoft and others to supplant all of them with proprietary, better and more modern encoding. JPEG will be extremely persistent and difficult to replace. PDF is another format that's so universal that it will take something very extraordinary and compelling to replace it.

[PDL]

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.

[Rondec]

Seems unlikely to change any time soon. There are a lot of other options. TIFF, PNG and lots of others. The thing is that for web posting you want small images for people with less bandwidth and if quality is a little less no one cares. Facebook images seem to be down-resolutioned quite a bit and no one complains.

[Not a Number]

I remember when GIF was pretty much the dominant format - pre-WWW days. Quickly supplanted by JPEG. GIF is still around, especially animated GIFs.

[WhiteFeather]

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.

Totally agree with you.

There is also a loss of quality involved when you convert one compressed type to another, and that could be something to consider when talking about converting images. On the other hand, shooting in RAW has the additional benefit that if, in 50 years, the standard for the compressed images changes, there will be new softwares able of converting those RAW to the new formats without loosing quality.

But even if the change will ever happen there will always be a software able of reading/processing/printing or working with JPEGs. The first digital images I did, 20 years ago with an HP "compact" camera, were 0.5MP JPG files that any software was, is and will be able to read for decades to come...

[ThorSanchez]

Better is the enemy of good enough. JPEG is good enough for a large majority of cases, including most instances of display on large, modern 4K monitors. For other cases like printing large, displaying large, and lossless archival data there are existing other formats that are fine. A good many pro photographers shoot JPEG for various reasons like quickly uploading event photos for publishing. If some pros get away with JPEG the disadvantages can't be that large. And if the advantages of a new format are small the chances of widespread adoption are also small.

I guess the other side of the coin is most people don't know what format their pictures are in. They hold up the phone, push the button, and a picture goes to Instagram. If Apple/Google/Samsung changed the format and it still worked with whatever is hosting the photo almost no one would care.

[bobmaxja]

I believe this will take some time to happen but at least the codec are integrated now in chromium browser and Firefox.
Here another comparing AVIF and WEBP.
Comparing AVIF vs WebP file sizes at the same DSSIM | Ctrl blog

[Bob 256]

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.

[normhead]

I have over 5,000 jpegs on Flickr and over 50,000 in my archive libraries... all I can say is "what's in it for me?" What is is people think is so good about this new format that would make it worth my while to change over all hose files. Just to go into my archives, which are now all done as tiffs to preserve the original information, to produce jpegs, What's easier? Spending 100 bucks on a larger hard drive or converting 50,000 files?

[FozzFoster]

I bet jpeg will get phased out for HEIF files soon.
Apple was the first major adopter of the format in 2017 with the introduction of iOS 11 using HEIC variant.

High Efficiency Image File Format - Wikipedia

---------- Post added 08-18-20 at 09:32 AM ----------

I have over 5,000 jpegs on Flickr and over 50,000 in my archive libraries... all I can say is "what's in it for me?" What is is people think is so good about this new format that would make it worth my while to change over all hose files. Just to go into my archives, which are now all done as tiffs to preserve the original information, to produce jpegs, What's easier? Spending 100 bucks on a larger hard drive or converting 50,000 files

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.
Doesn't need to be all or nothing, Norm. Switching to a new format doesn't mean you need to convert all the old photos, just do it on new ones (?)
At any rate, a batch job would convert your 50,000 with a matter of a few clicks...

[boriscleto]

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.