RAW or CRAW?

[Archibald]

HEIF. Why should it gain more traction?

 

[Only RF]

So why doesn't HIEF gain more traction? All modern Canon cameras have it. Yes I use C-Raw. For long term storage I use JPG. Almost three decades of pictures. RJ

I don’t know anything about HIEF. I’ve heard about it. I’ll look it up.

 

[Dean Wilson]

So why doesn't HIEF gain more traction? All modern Canon cameras have it. Yes I use C-Raw. For long term storage I use JPG. Almost three decades of pictures. RJ

Because HEIF is not generally supported by legacy OS's, and other programs without converting them. Lot's of folks are still using Windows 10 and probably some XP users out there as well.

Windows - 62.67%
macOS - 15.31%
OS X - 11.6%
Linux - 8.88%
Chrome 1.53%
FreeBSD 0%

source

Of those Windows users:

Windows 11: 68.6%
Legacy
Windows 10: 30.14%
Windows 7: 0.96%
Windows XP: 0.14%
Windows 8.1: 0.11%
Windows 8: 0.03%

macOS is a bit harder to locate accurate stats as to how many users per OS's.

 

[tpatana]

Reminds me of this comic

Standards

xkcd.com

 

[RickyRed]

HEIF. Why should it gain more traction?

JPG has been around forever. 8bit, Hief has 10 bit . A promise of better JPG type file..

 

[Only RF]

JPG has been around forever. 8bit, Hief has 10 bit . A promise of better JPG type file..

Thanks. That’s enough info for me

 

[Archibald]

JPG has been around forever. 8bit, Hief has 10 bit . A promise of better JPG type file..

JPG is already good enough as an end product. For shooting, it's raw. JPG and raw. Where is the need for HEIF?

 

[SwampGrizz]

I Googled this and this is what it returned:

Key Differences

• • File Size and Compression: HEIF uses modern compression that makes files about 50% smaller than JPEG while keeping the same or better image quality.
  • Color Depth: HEIF supports 10-bit or higher color (over a billion colors) for smoother gradients and less color banding, whereas JPEG is limited to 8-bit color (16.7 million colors).
  • Compatibility: JPEG opens on virtually any device, web browser, or platform. HEIF works well on modern Apple and Android devices, but older systems or specific web tools may require a file conversion.
  • Advanced Features: HEIF can store multiple images in one file, depth maps, and transparency, which JPEG does not support.

Which Should You Use?

• • Use HEIF if you want to save phone storage space and capture richer colors on modern devices.
  • Use JPEG if you need to share files instantly across older computers, print labs, or websites without compatibility hiccups.

There are some footnotes associated with this, but I didn’t bring them across. My search was “HEIF vs JPEG” if you want more.

I don’t quite understand the 10-bit and 8-bit part in terms of gradient and banding. Maybe some with more knowledge can chime in. I’m happy with craw and jpeg. Maybe heif is better for phone cameras.

 

[chipman]

Don't need ten bit files when I have two bit eyes.

 

[Dean Wilson]

And then there Apple:

If you take a photo on an iPhone, it uses HEIF technology to compress the image, but saves the final file to your storage with a .heic extension.

 

[506ABN]

I find raw works fine.
When sharing straight from my R7 the JPEGs look just fine.

 

[Archibald]

I Googled this and this is what it returned:

Key Differences

• • File Size and Compression: HEIF uses modern compression that makes files about 50% smaller than JPEG while keeping the same or better image quality.
  • Color Depth: HEIF supports 10-bit or higher color (over a billion colors) for smoother gradients and less color banding, whereas JPEG is limited to 8-bit color (16.7 million colors).
  • Compatibility: JPEG opens on virtually any device, web browser, or platform. HEIF works well on modern Apple and Android devices, but older systems or specific web tools may require a file conversion.
  • Advanced Features: HEIF can store multiple images in one file, depth maps, and transparency, which JPEG does not support.

Which Should You Use?

• • Use HEIF if you want to save phone storage space and capture richer colors on modern devices.
  • Use JPEG if you need to share files instantly across older computers, print labs, or websites without compatibility hiccups.

There are some footnotes associated with this, but I didn’t bring them across. My search was “HEIF vs JPEG” if you want more.

I don’t quite understand the 10-bit and 8-bit part in terms of gradient and banding. Maybe some with more knowledge can chime in. I’m happy with craw and jpeg. Maybe heif is better for phone cameras.

Regarding banding:

Photos are made of pixels, and pixels are made of RGB data. JPGs have 8 bits for each primary color. The bits refer to how big the number can be. So each color can vary from hex 00000000 to hex 11111111. In decimal, that is 0 to 255. Since there are three primary colors, the total colors available is 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 million.

In some photos, there can be areas with very similar color - for instance a blue sky. In such cases, swaths of neighboring pixels can be identical. That can appear as banding.

A 10 bit photo has four times as many of each primary color available, so the banding will be much finer and much harder to see.

In practice, we rarely see banding in our photos because the 8x8x8 bits in JPGs usually provide enough colors, and besides, images are broken up by noise which means the areas are not really as uniform as they appear.

 

[SwampGrizz]

Ed,
Thanks for explaining that. I have a photo that has been bugging me for a while. There is some banding in the blue sky, and I can’t figure out why. Your explanation makes sense. I have messed around with it in Lightroom, and no luck. What can I do, if anything, to avoid it or fix it? I took the photo with my R50 and my 18-45 kit lens shortly after I got them, if that helps. See the blue sky below.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Archibald]

Ed,
Thanks for explaining that. I have a photo that has been bugging me for a while. There is some banding in the blue sky, and I can’t figure out why. Your explanation makes sense. I have messed around with it in Lightroom, and no luck. What can I do, if anything, to avoid it or fix it? I took the photo with my R50 and my 18-45 kit lens shortly after I got them, if that helps. See the blue sky below.

View attachment 49562

It would be interesting to see the original with EXIF. Was the original overexposed?

To reduce the banding, try adding noise to the sky.

 

[SwampGrizz]

The original is a jpeg. Can you recover EXIF info from a jpeg?
I have the sky saved as a mask, and the only instance where I can remove the bands is when I jack up the exposure in the sky, and that just turns the sky white. How do you add noise? I went to the denoise slider, and took it to extremes either way, and can’t tell much difference. In retrospect, this photo may not have been the best example to use.
Thanks for your expertise and patience.

 

[Archibald]

The original is a jpeg. Can you recover EXIF info from a jpeg?
I have the sky saved as a mask, and the only instance where I can remove the bands is when I jack up the exposure in the sky, and that just turns the sky white. How do you add noise? I went to the denoise slider, and took it to extremes either way, and can’t tell much difference. In retrospect, this photo may not have been the best example to use.
Thanks for your expertise and patience.

It looks like the sky was overexposed. There are quite a few pixels that are maxxed out and don't have faithful data. Given that it is a JPG, it will be difficult to fix.

In Lightroom Classic, there is a slider that will increase or decrease the grain. It is under Effects. You can use it to increase noise (= grain). But it is not helpful in this image.

In Photoshop, you can do a sky replacement on this image. I tried it and it does a pretty good job.

Yes, JPGs have EXIF data. The data is shown below your photo in this thread, but I don't see it in the file.