Why does Chrome not support HIF images?

[CAcreeks]

Nikon was the last major ILC vendor to provide an option to write HIF images, if I'm not mistaken. Sony and Canon have offered the option for years. Also called HEIF or HEIC.

Safari is currently the only browser that displays HIF, as of version 17.

If the most popular browsers don't support HIF display, there's no practical way DPreview will be able to permit insertion of HIF images into posts. Personally I'm very interested in HIF because it's capable of showing brighter highlights than JPEG.

 

[ishwanu]

Perhaps because of licensing fees associated with its use. That's a likely reason for its lack of support in general.

Safari is currently the only browser that displays HIF, as of version 17.

Yes, Apple is very fond of what's different, and semi-proprietary. Here's what one non-Apple software developer says about such things:

https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,14008.msg103494.html#msg103494

 

[CAcreeks]

Perhaps because of licensing fees associated with its use. That's a likely reason for its lack of support in general.

Safari is currently the only browser that displays HIF, as of version 17.

Yes, Apple is very fond of what's different, and semi-proprietary. Here's what one non-Apple software developer says about such things:

https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,14008.msg103494.html#msg103494

Apple management might have reservations as well. Safari 17 finally supported HEIC in 2023, several years after iPhones produced it by default. Why the delay? Presumably Apple already pays whatever royalties Nokia etc. might levy.

I believe Microsoft allows free downloads of the HEIC codec for still photographs, but charges $1 to download the video codec. And it might be bundled in W11.

HDR from the iPhone is quite impressive, but looks lots more dramatic in HEIC than in JPEG.

 

[ishwanu]

Perhaps because of licensing fees associated with its use. That's a likely reason for its lack of support in general.

Safari is currently the only browser that displays HIF, as of version 17.

Yes, Apple is very fond of what's different, and semi-proprietary. Here's what one non-Apple software developer says about such things:

https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,14008.msg103494.html#msg103494

Apple management might have reservations as well. Safari 17 finally supported HEIC in 2023, several years after iPhones produced it by default. Why the delay? Presumably Apple already pays whatever royalties Nokia etc. might levy.

I believe Microsoft allows free downloads of the HEIC codec for still photographs, but charges $1 to download the video codec.

I installed both extensions in Win10 because it actually needs both of them for HEIC still files. It's amusing that lots of people are outraged to have to pay a buck for it.

https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9pmmsr1cgpwg

And it might be bundled in W11.

I dunno. Maybe I'll find out later this year when I have to upgrade.

HDR from the iPhone is quite impressive, but looks lots more dramatic in HEIC than in JPEG.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

Jpeg was developed as a standard because a standard format was needed, not 20 different formats competing.

Jpeg just works, there's no need for anything else.

 

[CAcreeks]

Jpeg was developed as a standard because a standard format was needed, not 20 different formats competing.

Jpeg just works, there's no need for anything else.

If you had an HDR monitor, you could probably see that HEIC (from iPhone) or HIF (from Sony or Canon) has much more prominent highlight color and detail, than JPEG. See below.

As if we needed another standard, the standardization committee invented JpegXL, which is as poorly supported as HEIF. Although JpegXL may prevail. Google Chrome supports neither. No camera vendors I know support JpegXL, whereas at least four support HIF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL


HIF from Sony a6700 16-50 PZ, 1/2500 f5

 

[GeoffRG]

Jpeg was developed as a standard because a standard format was needed, not 20 different formats competing.

Jpeg just works, there's no need for anything else.

JPEG was indeed developed as a standard, 33 years ago!

There is a growing need for something better, preferably a lossless format that retains, or at least tries to retain the bit depth and colour gamut of the original.

 

[KCK14]

I have HEIF images in Google Photos and they are displayed well in Chrome. What are you referring to as not supported?

 

[CAcreeks]

I have HEIF images in Google Photos and they are displayed well in Chrome. What are you referring to as not supported?

That is not my experience. How did you get HEIF into Google Photos?

When I try to drag&drop import a HIF photo (from Sony a6700 although that shouldn't matter) two error messages say:

Couldn't back up 1 item.
Unsupported file format.
Unable to back up items.

When I try to open a HEIC file (taken by iPhone) by right-clicking open-with Google Chrome in Finder, Chrome just downloads it, like a Zip file or similar.

 

[KCK14]

I was in Google Photos on my iMac desktop. I used the Upload command to build an album from a number of HEIF images from a regular folder on the Mac. I view the pictures in Google Photos from the Chrome browser.

 

[CAcreeks]

I was in Google Photos on my iMac desktop. I used the Upload command to build an album from a number of HEIF images from a regular folder on the Mac. I view the pictures in Google Photos from the Chrome browser.

I assume Google Photos Upload transforms the photos into JPEG.

Where is the Upload command? I did not see it, but will look again later tonight.

[Added later] Found the Upload option.

Apparently what Google Photos does is to translate the HEIC into JPEG for gallery display, but save the original HEIC in case you want to download it (changing suffix to heif). You can tell the gallery display is JPEG because if you right-click Open Image in New Tab, it will appear as JPEG in the new tab.

 

[KCK14]

I was in Google Photos on my iMac desktop. I used the Upload command to build an album from a number of HEIF images from a regular folder on the Mac. I view the pictures in Google Photos from the Chrome browser.

I assume Google Photos Upload transforms the photos into JPEG.

Where is the Upload command? I did not see it, but will look again later tonight.

[Added later] Found the Upload option.

Apparently what Google Photos does is to translate the HEIC into JPEG for gallery display, but save the original HEIC in case you want to download it (changing suffix to heif). You can tell the gallery display is JPEG because if you right-click Open Image in New Tab, it will appear as JPEG in the new tab.

Probably right. I am uploading with the Storage Saver ON so I don't really know what Google is doing. My main photo handling is in LRC and Apple iCloud Photo. I only use Google Photos for stuff I want to easily share with my son who is non-Apple.

 

[CAcreeks]

I am uploading with the Storage Saver ON so I don't really know what Google is doing. My main photo handling is in LRC and Apple iCloud Photo. I only use Google Photos for stuff I want to easily share with my son who is non-Apple.

Aha, Storage Saver = compressed and stored at reduced quality.

Recently I acquired an iPhone SE, and despite its low price, it takes better pictures (overall) than my wife's high-end Samsung, which oversharpens and takes less convincing HDR.

I don't have Lightroom, but Affinity Photo does a good job of getting HDR colors correct, for iPhone HEIC, Sony HIF, and Canon HIF. Various other editors are not so good.

 

[jxh]

it actually needs both of them for HEIC still files. It's amusing that lots of people are outraged to have to pay a buck for it.

https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9pmmsr1cgpwg

Technically, be aware (as I understand it) the $1 is personal use only license.

 

[Vlad K]

HEIF is supported by all major browsers and OS, but with caveats.
The big issue with HEIF files is their variability: HEIF itself is just a container format, with various codecs, such as HEVC (h.265), or free AV1 (AVIF), used to encode the image data.
Apple uses HEVC codec for HEIC, this is the reason why Safari supports it. Others are not willing to pay for the license.
AVIF is supported by pretty much every major browser, image editor and viewer. But even here you might be hit with specific software implementation limitations if, say, the 8- or 10-bit images are supported, but 12-bit are not, if SDR is supported but HDR is not, etc. Photoshop still does not support Canon HIF / HEIC AFAIK, most likely because of licensing issues.
--
Vlad

 

[mfinley]

JPEG was indeed developed as a standard, 33 years ago!

There is a growing need for something better, preferably a lossless format that retains, or at least tries to retain the bit depth and colour gamut of the original.

I think they came out with WebP files as the replacement for jpeg in regard to websites & browsers.

"WebP - originally created by Google, the WebP format intends to replace old image formats such as JPEG, PNG, and GIF formats. It is a modern image format that provides superior lossless and lossy compression for images on the web. Using WebP, webmasters and web developers can create smaller, richer images that make the web faster. WebP lossless images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNGs and JPEGs."

 

[CAcreeks]

JPEG was indeed developed as a standard, 33 years ago!

There is a growing need for something better, preferably a lossless format that retains, or at least tries to retain the bit depth and colour gamut of the original.

I think they came out with WebP files as the replacement for jpeg in regard to websites & browsers.

"WebP - originally created by Google, the WebP format intends to replace old image formats such as JPEG, PNG, and GIF formats. It is a modern image format that provides superior lossless and lossy compression for images on the web. Using WebP, webmasters and web developers can create smaller, richer images that make the web faster. WebP lossless images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNGs and JPEGs."

I looked at the comparison websites when WebP first came out, and did not see a dramatic improvement over JPEG, neither in image quality nor significantly smaller file size. WebP has better image quality vs low JPEG quality values, but if you keep JPEG above quality 85 and avoid 4:2:0 (2x2) chroma subsampling, there is very little difference.

WebP is a good way for online newspapers to protect their photos, because not many people know how to edit or rewrite WebP format.

GIMP can export Lossless WebP, but I don't see controls for bit depth. The Wikipedia page makes it seem like an 8-bit format, primarily.

 

[mfinley]

JPEG was indeed developed as a standard, 33 years ago!

There is a growing need for something better, preferably a lossless format that retains, or at least tries to retain the bit depth and colour gamut of the original.

I think they came out with WebP files as the replacement for jpeg in regard to websites & browsers.

"WebP - originally created by Google, the WebP format intends to replace old image formats such as JPEG, PNG, and GIF formats. It is a modern image format that provides superior lossless and lossy compression for images on the web. Using WebP, webmasters and web developers can create smaller, richer images that make the web faster. WebP lossless images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNGs and JPEGs."

I looked at the comparison websites when WebP first came out, and did not see a dramatic improvement over JPEG, neither in image quality nor significantly smaller file size. WebP has better image quality vs low JPEG quality values, but if you keep JPEG above quality 85 and avoid 4:2:0 (2x2) chroma subsampling, there is very little difference.

WebP is a good way for online newspapers to protect their photos, because not many people know how to edit or rewrite WebP format.

GIMP can export Lossless WebP, but I don't see controls for bit depth. The Wikipedia page makes it seem like an 8-bit format, primarily.

I don't know how long ago you tested it, but its accepted by the industry that WebP can be 20-30% smaller, as anything I'm sure there are variables to what circumstances effect the improvement. I don't know anything about it supposed to be a dramatic improvement in IQ, I believe the promise is it's better than what a jpeg provides, better versus dramatic can be quite far apart.

As someone who builds a website now and then, converting your Jpeg/Gif/PNG to WebP files is standard practice for website optimization, and is pretty much the default for any app or website building program when you start looking at optimization.

 

[CAcreeks]

I looked at the comparison websites when WebP first came out, and did not see a dramatic improvement over JPEG, neither in image quality nor significantly smaller file size.

I have no idea when you did that, or what your results were or based on in WebP not being a significantly smaller file size, because 20-30% if significant, very significant when you're measuring that against no loss of IQ from the larger jpeg files. A 20-30% reduction in data to download to a browser is a MASSIVE game changer in terms of download speeds to display a website.

I started my website many years ago when network download speed was a huge concern, and when the ISP imposed quotas on storage space and monthly bandwidth. I tested conversion of TIFF source images into WebP instead of JPEG, but it wasn't worth it. I couldn't find any guidelines about optimum WebP quality levels, so I just used the same numbers as JPEG. The difference was < 5% overall, if I recall correctly.

Worst thing about WebP is that it's not good for HDR. Adobe's gainmap demo has AVIF, JpegXL, and JPEG. The first two seem more promising than WebP.

Dramatic improvement in IQ? I think you need to remove the adjective of "Dramatic" here because I don't think that was ever one of the promised features, all that was promised was an "improvement" and it probably has a lot to do with how much compression of each file you are testing against. Two 100%s, two 80%s, two 60% compressed versions, I'm pretty sure that's where you're going to find your differences in IQ being retained by WebP. Not just 100% versus 100%. But this is only a guess as I've never been concerned with it as it hasn't been relative to anything.

Do you have any recommendations about producing good/small WebP images? I used the ImageMagic program for the aforementioned test.

As someone who builds a website now and then I can tell you that every app for websites and every website building program that is concerned with maximizing website speed which is basically the #1 most important criteria that google now uses to determine ranking, uses Jpeg/Gif/PNG to WebP file conversions as a standard baseline default feature plus a whole lot of more technical stuff in addition. But it's always about converting your jpegs to WebP files for any website. It's been that way for awhile because it works, the files are smaller and there is no compromise on IQ versus the other files and that's a win.

The biggest PITA about website maintenance is security certificate management. Are some ISPs known to have simplified this process?

 

[mfinley]

Worst thing about WebP is that it's not good for HDR. Adobe's gainmap demo has AVIF, JpegXL, and JPEG. The first two seem more promising than WebP.

That could be the case, for WebP you may be hitting it's limitations. JpegXL is supposed to be the successor for WebP isn't it or just another option?

Do you have any recommendations about producing good/small WebP images? I used the ImageMagic program for the aforementioned test.

I don't do the conversions myself individually for each file, for me it's done through optimizing the whole website which is typically through your hosting panel optimization features, the website builder software itself or a 3rd party app (a plugin), or a combination of the three. The WebP file conversions are automatic and really just a small part of the optimization process going on.

The biggest PITA about website maintenance is security certificate management. Are some ISPs known to have simplified this process?

My host provides it as part of the hosting package, it renews automatically through them, so there is no maintenance going that route.

Is it possible a lot of your management and website maintenance you're personally involved in is the result of your hosting company or the hosting plan you have?

What I do is with Wordpress, website built with Elementor and hosted with SiteGround.