Why some camera manufacturers still haven't implement HEIF image

It's not exactly taxing my search engine to find answers, this is for Windows 11 HIEF in W11 apparently The Gimp supports HIEF for editing. As I see it, and you will disagree, these are excuses rather than solid reasons for not implementing HIEF in cameras. Personally I'm not affected because I shoot raw but, I'm sure there are many who would benefit from the newer file format.
Well that was interesting. I've downloaded the free HEIF Windows codec, updated my GIMP to the latest version and it used Raw Therapee to import a 34.4MB CR3 and then I exported a 16.4MB HEIF and a 4.72MB JPEG. The Windows photo app told me that "The HEVC Video Extension is required to display this file" and the download link is asking for 79p for it. The file properties for the HEIF tell me it's a 32 bit depth file, which I wasn't expecting and Raw Therapee couldn't make sense of the EXIF data in the CR3 file, so there are no camera or copyright details. I'll definitely stick with JPEGs exported from PhotoLab 7, (same image, better colour, saturation and contrast, 3.31MB, maybe I'd get better at Raw Therapee with practice) but at least I can view an HEIF via the GIMP. I still don't think this nine-year old format is worth the hassle.
 
OK then, let's put to bed the idea that 75% of people can't open HEIF files. Microsoft offers a free extension for Windows 10, Microsoft HEIF extension.
It's not free to make Windows 10 open the files. In order for that to work, you have to also install another extension:

'Images that are stored in HEIF files that have the .heic file extension are compressed using the HEVC format. Such files require the HEVC Video Extensions package to be installed as well. If the HEVC Video Extensions package is not installed, the HEIF Image Extension will not be able to read or write .heic files.'

That extension costs 99 cents, presumably because of the ubiquitous licensing fees mentioned earlier in the thread. The cost per person isn't a problem, and installing the extensions isn't a problem for people who know what they need to do, but it remains a problem for ordinary users who don't know what this is about and will just be frustrated when out-of-the-box Windows fails to open the files.

One could say that's Microsoft's fault for being cheap, but the cost of licenses for the hundreds of millions of Windows 10 computers adds up.

Apple doesn't have as many newish computers out there. Also, my own personal conspiracy theory is that Apple got a steep discount on the licensing fees in exchange for providing exposure of the file format.

Aside from all that, many users need to do more with their image files than just open them in Windows. They need good third party software (and other device) support.
It's not exactly taxing my search engine to find answers, this is for Windows 11 HIEF in W11 apparently The Gimp supports HIEF for editing.
Sure, we can find a few third party apps that support it. That's not the point when EVERY third party app and device supports JPEG.
As I see it, and you will disagree, these are excuses rather than solid reasons for not implementing HIEF in cameras.
As I posted early in the thread, camera manufacturers not adding support for HEIF in cameras (in addition to JPEG, of course) is most likely a cost thing due to the licensing fees and other costs of implementation. If they did add it, I'm sure many JPEG shooters would still use JPEG because its universal compatibility would trump the benefits of HEIF. But the widespread adoption of HEIF will continue to lag as long as the entities involved have to pay licensing fees.
Personally I'm not affected because I shoot raw but, I'm sure there are many who would benefit from the newer file format.
I don't disagree with that.
 
Last edited:
. These are not HEIF files but are HDR Jpeg files exported from Lightroom.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67881805
Then the file one downloads from the "original" link is just a jpeg and not an "HDR Jpeg" (no HDR extension I'm used to) . Not unlike simply running an HDR file though convertor to jPG. Could be wrong. I note the red channel is blown and sRGB from the Adobe standard profile. Blown red might affect appearance when changing viewing screen. Images appear identical in Chrome or Firefox/Edge for me

I do note the Lightroom applied the HDR GAIN MAP....xmlns:hdrgm="http://ns.adobe.com/hdr-gain-map/1.0/" Images optimized for High Dynamic Range (HDR) displays have brighter highlights and more detailed shadows, resulting in an increased sense of realism and a greater impact. Doen't make them HDR but optimizes the JPEG tone map for an HDR display


In this case:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67888848

I think what you are seeing is simply a difference in how the JPEG is displayed and not JPEG vs HDR. I get the same effect when I compare them displayed calibrated sRGB 10-bit monitor (looks like one on your right side comparison) to same image displayed on an unclaibrated lessor monitor. In both cases...histogram is the same.

Thanks for the comparison. Pretty cool
 
Last edited:
. These are not HEIF files but are HDR Jpeg files exported from Lightroom.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67881805
Then the file one downloads from the "original" link is just a jpeg and not an "HDR Jpeg"
It is an HDR jpeg. This is a relatively new feature implemented in Lightroom. Basically, it is a regular jpeg with a map of HDR data appended.



9c8ea47a8ac0446899bcc0d0dc7d05f3.jpg.png

(no HDR extension I'm used to) . Not unlike simply running an HDR file though convertor to jPG. Could be wrong. I note the red channel is blown and sRGB from the Adobe standard profile.
I didn't do much work in keeping things from blowing in sRGB. There are tools to do that.
Blown red might affect appearance when changing viewing screen. Images appear identical in Chrome or Firefox/Edge for me

I do note the Lightroom applied the HDR GAIN MAP....xmlns:hdrgm="http://ns.adobe.com/hdr-gain-map/1.0/" Images optimized for High Dynamic Range (HDR) displays have brighter highlights and more detailed shadows, resulting in an increased sense of realism and a greater impact. Doen't make them HDR but optimizes the JPEG tone map for an HDR display
Yes, it makes them HDR. If you look at the blown channels, for example, they are not blown when taking the HDR data into account.
In this case:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67888848

I think what you are seeing is simply a difference in how the JPEG is displayed and not JPEG vs HDR. I get the same effect when I compare them displayed calibrated sRGB 10-bit monitor (looks like one on your right side comparison) to same image displayed on an unclaibrated lessor monitor. In both cases...histogram is the same.

Thanks for the comparison. Pretty cool
I say it actually is HDR because it includes the standard jpeg data PLUS additional data. This additional data includes all the data that is in HDR but not in sRGB.

Describing it in terms of how it is handled in code in iOS (because I'm familiar with that), the JPEG data after decoding from the JPEG format has values in the range 0...1 for each of the channels, red, green, and blue. When you add the HDR map, the values can be greater than 1.

This allows HDR files to be visible even on apps that don't support HDR - those ignore the extra data added to the jpeg file. Pretty clever.

--
Victor Engel
 
. These are not HEIF files but are HDR Jpeg files exported from Lightroom.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67881805
Then the file one downloads from the "original" link is just a jpeg and not an "HDR Jpeg"
It is an HDR jpeg. This is a relatively new feature implemented in Lightroom. Basically, it is a regular jpeg with a map of HDR data appended.

9c8ea47a8ac0446899bcc0d0dc7d05f3.jpg.png
I checked the file..it wasn't an HDR file...just a normal jpeg optimized for viewing on a HDR display...different tone mapping. Not unlike a jpeg in sRGB vs Adobe RGB. In this case..sRGB (gamma 2.2) vs sRGB Rec 709 (gamma 2.4). In this case...the HDR is just a label not really denoting an HDR file. It's really just a normal jpeg with the HDR sRGB rec 709 color space.

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
 
Last edited:
. These are not HEIF files but are HDR Jpeg files exported from Lightroom.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67881805
Then the file one downloads from the "original" link is just a jpeg and not an "HDR Jpeg"
It is an HDR jpeg. This is a relatively new feature implemented in Lightroom. Basically, it is a regular jpeg with a map of HDR data appended.

9c8ea47a8ac0446899bcc0d0dc7d05f3.jpg.png
I checked the file..it wasn't an HDR file...just a normal jpeg optimized for viewing on a HDR display...different tone mapping. Not unlike a jpeg in sRGB vs Adobe RGB. In this case..sRGB (gamma 2.2) vs sRGB Rec 709 (gamma 2.4). In this case...the HDR is just a label not really denoting an HDR file. It's really just a normal jpeg with the HDR sRGB rec 709 color space.
... with a gain map. The gain map is what makes it render as HDR. See
which is for Photoshop, but I did a similar process in Lightroom, except that I chose Rec. 709 where the presenter chose P3. That difference doesn't affect whether it's HDR, though. That's just the color profile.

It's an HDR video - not sure what it looks like in SDR. :)

--
Victor Engel
 
Last edited:
I checked the file..it wasn't an HDR file...just a normal jpeg optimized for viewing on a HDR display...different tone mapping. Not unlike a jpeg in sRGB vs Adobe RGB. In this case..sRGB (gamma 2.2) vs sRGB Rec 709 (gamma 2.4). In this case...the HDR is just a label not really denoting an HDR file. It's really just a normal jpeg with the HDR sRGB rec 709 color space.
... with a gain map. The gain map is what makes it render as HDR.
Yes...like the Adobe RGB color space and associated tone/gain mapping let a JPEG look correct on a Adobe RGB calibrated monitor.
Yes...it's effectively a sRGB color space with a 2.4 gamma vs 2.2...great for HDR screen viewing while being OK on a standard display.
. That's just the color profile.
Yes...note a true HDR file.
 
It's obviously very easy to say "but I'm happy with JPEG" which is fine but the whole advantage of digital media is the ability to share. Sharing at minimum quality might be OK for a phone but it isn't brilliant for a smart TV or a desktop computer. Nobody is suggesting that you will be forced to switch from JPEG but why would you want to stop other people from benefiting from a better image format?
Because the thinking (not my thinking) goes like this: "I don't like HEIF, I don't care about HEIF, I don't want to deal with HEIF, so I don't want others to have it else they might send me HEIF files which would inconvenience me. My point of view is all that matters to me."

Personalities that score low on Openness and Agreeableness of the big five personality traits.

Difficult to understand if you are a different personality type :-)
 
It's obviously very easy to say "but I'm happy with JPEG" which is fine but the whole advantage of digital media is the ability to share. Sharing at minimum quality might be OK for a phone but it isn't brilliant for a smart TV or a desktop computer. Nobody is suggesting that you will be forced to switch from JPEG but why would you want to stop other people from benefiting from a better image format?
Because the thinking (not my thinking) goes like this: "I don't like HEIF, I don't care about HEIF, I don't want to deal with HEIF, so I don't want others to have it else they might send me HEIF files which would inconvenience me. My point of view is all that matters to me."

Personalities that score low on Openness and Agreeableness of the big five personality traits.

Difficult to understand if you are a different personality type :-)
Given the lack of support for the format there must be a lot of those that score low on Openess and Agreeableness.

I wonder how many are part of the Assuming and Making Up Stuff personality type.

( I don't need to justify what I do to anyone but, as an example, my cameras don't capture in HEIF and I am happy with what I have , so why would I want to get into HEIF ???? to please those that like it ? It isn't about beign open or not, it is just of no use to me , at the moment at least. I suspect I am not the only one).
 
Last edited:
I checked the file..it wasn't an HDR file...just a normal jpeg optimized for viewing on a HDR display...different tone mapping. Not unlike a jpeg in sRGB vs Adobe RGB. In this case..sRGB (gamma 2.2) vs sRGB Rec 709 (gamma 2.4). In this case...the HDR is just a label not really denoting an HDR file. It's really just a normal jpeg with the HDR sRGB rec 709 color space.
... with a gain map. The gain map is what makes it render as HDR.
Yes...like the Adobe RGB color space and associated tone/gain mapping let a JPEG look correct on a Adobe RGB calibrated monitor.
Yes...it's effectively a sRGB color space with a 2.4 gamma vs 2.2...great for HDR screen viewing while being OK on a standard display.
No. There is also a gain map. It is the gain map that makes it effectively HDR.
. That's just the color profile.
Yes...note a true HDR file.
I think I missed something here. Edit: I think you meant to say, "NOT a true HDR file". So that suggests the question: "What is a true HDR file?" Anyway, I used jpeg with 709 because that's what DPR supports (if you have a supporting monitor). Or do you have an alternative way to show HDR images on DPR?

Here's a companion video showing Lightroom:

The presenter indicates that LR doesn't support HDR in the Library module. It does now (in an update after that video was created), but as far as I can tell, only in Loupe view, not in Grid view, for example.

--
Victor Engel
 
Last edited:
I checked the file..it wasn't an HDR file...just a normal jpeg optimized for viewing on a HDR display...different tone mapping. Not unlike a jpeg in sRGB vs Adobe RGB. In this case..sRGB (gamma 2.2) vs sRGB Rec 709 (gamma 2.4). In this case...the HDR is just a label not really denoting an HDR file. It's really just a normal jpeg with the HDR sRGB rec 709 color space.
... with a gain map. The gain map is what makes it render as HDR.
Yes...like the Adobe RGB color space and associated tone/gain mapping let a JPEG look correct on a Adobe RGB calibrated monitor.
Yes...it's effectively a sRGB color space with a 2.4 gamma vs 2.2...great for HDR screen viewing while being OK on a standard display.
. That's just the color profile.
Yes...note a true HDR file.
Anyway, I used jpeg with 709 because that's what DPR supports (if you have a supporting monitor).
Correct...DPR supports jpeg with sRGB or Adobe RGB or sRGB 709...or any other color space in jpeg.
Or do you have an alternative way to show HDR images on DPR?
It's not an HDR image in the true sense, I think...it's a jpeg with the sRGB 709 color space. And it will only look "correct/as intended" if viewed in a viewer/browser that supports the sRGB 709 color space as well as the monitor. No different than a jpeg in Adobe RGB needing a compatible viewer and monitor to view it accurately
Here's a companion video showing Lightroom:

The presenter indicates that LR doesn't support HDR in the Library module. It does now (in an update after that video was created), but as far as I can tell, only in Loupe view, not in Grid view, for example.
Not unlike when LR processing in the ProPhoto color space....then generating a ProPhoto RGB jpeg? Remember your file is 8 bit. sRGB and 8bit 709 are virtually interchangeable in the chroma capability. However, sRGB is spec’d at gamma 2.2 whereas 709 is 2.4 mostly. So you will see a dif only when viewed on a screen that is also 2.4 capable (most HDR T.Vs and HDR monitors)? Viewer software also needs to make the distinction.

For the web I think sRGB is what one wants...but if the intention is to view in a dark room on a HDR capable screen...then the sRGB rec 709 is preferred color space for jpeg viewing. That said...if I want to view a real HDR image on a 4k/8K HDR TV/monitor...then a HEIF file/image and associated viewer is the better option.

Now if you are also working in Adobe Premiere's work space...using rec 709 in LR/Photoshop makes sense, I think
 
HE can only use the file IF he has supporting software/hardware

(cough, cough)
 
Last edited:
I checked the file..it wasn't an HDR file...just a normal jpeg optimized for viewing on a HDR display...different tone mapping. Not unlike a jpeg in sRGB vs Adobe RGB. In this case..sRGB (gamma 2.2) vs sRGB Rec 709 (gamma 2.4). In this case...the HDR is just a label not really denoting an HDR file. It's really just a normal jpeg with the HDR sRGB rec 709 color space.
... with a gain map. The gain map is what makes it render as HDR.
Yes...like the Adobe RGB color space and associated tone/gain mapping let a JPEG look correct on a Adobe RGB calibrated monitor.
Yes...it's effectively a sRGB color space with a 2.4 gamma vs 2.2...great for HDR screen viewing while being OK on a standard display.
. That's just the color profile.
Yes...note a true HDR file.
Anyway, I used jpeg with 709 because that's what DPR supports (if you have a supporting monitor).
Correct...DPR supports jpeg with sRGB or Adobe RGB or sRGB 709...or any other color space in jpeg.
Or do you have an alternative way to show HDR images on DPR?
It's not an HDR image in the true sense, I think...it's a jpeg with the sRGB 709 color space. And it will only look "correct/as intended" if viewed in a viewer/browser that supports the sRGB 709 color space as well as the monitor. No different than a jpeg in Adobe RGB needing a compatible viewer and monitor to view it accurately
Here's a companion video showing Lightroom:

The presenter indicates that LR doesn't support HDR in the Library module. It does now (in an update after that video was created), but as far as I can tell, only in Loupe view, not in Grid view, for example.
Not unlike when LR processing in the ProPhoto color space....then generating a ProPhoto RGB jpeg? Remember your file is 8 bit. sRGB and 8bit 709 are virtually interchangeable in the chroma capability. However, sRGB is spec’d at gamma 2.2 whereas 709 is 2.4 mostly. So you will see a dif only when viewed on a screen that is also 2.4 capable (most HDR T.Vs and HDR monitors)? Viewer software also needs to make the distinction.

For the web I think sRGB is what one wants...but if the intention is to view in a dark room on a HDR capable screen...then the sRGB rec 709 is preferred color space for jpeg viewing. That said...if I want to view a real HDR image on a 4k/8K HDR TV/monitor...then a HEIF file/image and associated viewer is the better option.

Now if you are also working in Adobe Premiere's work space...using rec 709 in LR/Photoshop makes sense, I think
I think it's not just 709 but also a gain map. It could be sRGB plus a gain map. Not much difference there, except the gain map would be different.
 
I think it's not just 709 but also a gain map. It could be sRGB plus a gain map. Not much difference there, except the gain map would be different.
yes I think that's correct...a sRGB jpeg simply has a different gain map than a sRGB jpeg 709 ...optimized for HDR software/viewing devices. Now on a 4K HDR screen in a dark room...view an HEIF image and compare it to the sRGB Rec 709 image converted from the same HEIF file in LR. I don't think they will look the same.

Then compare that to the sRGB standard jpeg. Then all 3 on a non-HDR TV /monitor (I think all 3 should look the same in that case...not sure)

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
 
Last edited:
I think it's not just 709 but also a gain map. It could be sRGB plus a gain map. Not much difference there, except the gain map would be different.
yes I think that's correct...a sRGB jpeg simply has a different gain map than a sRGB jpeg 709 ...optimized for HDR software/viewing devices. Now on a 4K HDR screen in a dark room...view an HEIF image and compare it to the sRGB Rec 709 image converted from the same HEIF file in LR. I don't think they will look the same.

Then compare that to the sRGB standard jpeg. Then all 3 on a non-HDR TV /monitor (I think all 3 should look the same in that case...not sure)
This discussion make me wonder why we spend so much money on camera and lenses, but pay so little attention to the image format and spec of monitor.
 
HEIF image is excellent in image quality (4:4:2 10 bit) and compact file size. Nowadays, most of the smartphone and Mac does support it. More TV, computer monitor do support 10bit HDR.

Why some camera manufacturers still haven't implement it?
Which manufacturers don't support it? I know Nikon does on at least 2 of its models.
 
This discussion make me wonder why we spend so much money on camera and lenses, but pay so little attention to the image format and spec of monitor.
I think the vast majority just view/process on their own gear and use sRGB for the web...so formats really aren't an issue. For the few where it does matter...they already know how to best use the right format and have a workflow and gear that's optimized. IMO, only a tiny group caught in the middle and they'll figure it out eventually or just press on happily

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
 
Last edited:
This discussion make me wonder why we spend so much money on camera and lenses, but pay so little attention to the image format and spec of monitor.
I think the vast majority just view/process on their own gear and use sRGB for the web...so formats really aren't an issue. For the few where it does matter...they already know how to best use the right format and have a workflow and gear that's optimized. IMO, only a tiny group caught in the middle and they'll figure it out eventually or just press on happily
It seems I am the tiny group. 😅
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top