Gordon, based on what I've gathered from watching all the 1D X Mark III videos, Canon's implementation of HEIF is different from what Apple did. Apple merely uses HEIF for its higher efficiency to generate identical to JPEG 8-bit images in terms of quality but have much smaller file sizes. But I think Canon is using the format to use its higher efficiency to pack more information into the files rather than getting smaller files. How does it do this? Their press material talked about 10-bit quality and higher dynamic range. I think Canon is using a perceptual quantizer similar to what is used for HDR video to capture and store higher dynamic range within the files. In order to view the files correctly, you will need an HDR display, at which point the details in the highlights will come through without clipping. This is also why the menu isn't a simple JPEG/HEIF toggle but instead an HDR menu. If possible, try and check these images on a computer with an HDR display, or an HDR television with HEIF support, or perhaps an iPhone with an OLED display. Also, if you would be so kind, please provide the HEIF files from the camera. I would like to run some of my own testing to see what these new files really are like and what's the best way to view them.

HEVC and consequently HEIF is heavily patented and thus will not get wide support on the web (currently it is at 0% - yaaay). Without that you'll always have to convert to JPEG anyway so you're even worse in the overall because of generational loss when converting from a lossy format to another lossy format. There are also licensing involved - if you want to for example distribute HEIF images, you may need to pay royalties for that and who would want to go into get into such a mess when you can just stick with JPEG and not have any problems like that. There are nice old and new image formats out there that are royalty free and don't need to deal with crap like that. For example AVIF, which is based on AV1 video format. AV1 has already better support on the web than HEVC (practically every new browser supports it except Safari). Then JPEG XL will soon be ratified, which is actually an format tuned for still images (HEIF and AVIF are very similar to 1 frame videos - using the same compression used in video for I-frames), which supports lossless conversion from a JPEG with 20% reduction in size, the algorithms used are actually tuned to produce better quality at higher bit-rates (video is tuned for the image to not fall apart at smaller bit-rates, which is not what you want for images actually), it supports lossless compression and bit depth up to 32-bit per channel if necessary (HEIF and AVIF are limited to 10-bit or in a higher profile to 12-bit). Also the format is made with complexity in mind and to not be much slower than JPEG. In the end what I would like to see is actually a support for some lossless 16-bit format - whatever that may be. JPEG 2000 would be more than fine for that, and it is old enough to not have any patent problems with that format today. In the latest specs it adds HT-J2K, which adds an addition to the format, that cures the most painful problem of the format - slowness.

Canon recommends turning on the Highlight Tone Priority if you really want to get the extended / smooth highlight range of the HEIF. Otherwise you will get the sudden clip on highlights in jpegs converted from HEIF, compared to regular jpegs - and you were getting just that.

If you plug the camera into a TV by HDMI, will it put the TV into HDR mode, and if so what HDR mode does it use, and what do you think of HIF vs JPEG under those circumstances? I bet they would look much better than JPEG on an OLED when it is in 10bit HDR mode and you can see that extra dynamic range. KZfaq supports HDR so there should be some way to convert the 10bit HIFs so they will show in youtube in HDR with their full dynamic range. Good luck finding a way to do it...

Thanks for the video Gordon. Exactly what i was looking for. I wasn't overly convinced though. The review seems score how well the applications you used convert the HEIF files to JPEG, rather than the retention of details. I think it would have made more sense to deliberately under/overexpose an image to see what you could recover from the highlights/shadows [for example: did the HEIF really blow out the sun really poorly in that sunset shot or was that just a quirk of the conversion process?]. Also interesting to see what kind of artifacts you could produce when pushing these files to the extreme. Comparing the HEIF/JPEG to the original raw file might also be an interesting exercise to see just how much of the original data is retained in real terms.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject and I haven't finished the video yet, but I assume current Windows 10 versions, most all current smartphones and Mac computers can properly display HEIF format images??? Also, I guess if it's always using a 1/3 slower shutter speed for the HEIF format vs the JPG format, I think that means then you can get away with a lower ISO if you're using auto ISO since the camera doesn't need to start boosting the ISO as soon as it would if your SS were 1/3 faster.

I was playing around with the Fujifilm XT4 today, although it doesn't shoot HEIF from the camera, I can convert them using Darkroom on Mac. I was wondering if you could do a video on this. Here's what my experiences were: I want to ensure I was comparing between the different formats only, so to avoid any human errors, I used a RAW file as the basis of all my comparisons. Then, I used the Fujifilm X Raw Studio to convert the RAW file into 16 bit TIFF, ensuring that I have a full uncompressed image exactly like the camera intended. I did all the editing on the TIFF, and then I used Darkroom to convert them to 3 different files. A 100% quality JPEG, a100% HEIF, and then a 80% HEIF. Which translate to storage space of about 15MB, 9MB, and 2.5MB respectively. I compared them side by side, and I was amazed that there's little to no quality difference between all three of them. Now, I believe if I were to edit the 3 photos, there will be difference in the details available in the image, but just keeping them as a final edited image, I'd choose the 2.5MB file without question. I would however, keep the original RAW files on a NAS or some backup device, if I wanted to edit them in the future. But The HEIF standard is really amazing IMO.

Great info Gordon.

Mostly preferred the JPEG images. I and understand the potential of HEIF, but it's sort of like where H265 was when it came out. Not much support. Also, since the majority image compression is jpeg, it will be a while before HEIF gets common usage. But it's nice that the camera (which I will never own) offers jpeg too.

Very useful video , thanks 👍

Well it is very early, but of these I think I preferred the jpg samples- even with the blown out skies. For me, it is more about the simplicity for which we use jpgs.. However, like most things, I’m sure capability and compatibility will be improved over time.

thank you for the information

I've noticed that even if I have HEIF set, if I turn my R6 M2 to Auto Intelligent mode, it switches from HEIF back to JPG

when im taking a screen capture in playback footage on camera my HEIF are saving as a 16:9 ratio?

Observation I've made, and wondering what others' experience has been: when I rapidly scroll through JPG's (full screen) on my Windows 10 PC, with a mid-range video card and Intel I7 processor, they load much quicker than scrolling through a folder of HEIF's downloaded from an iPhone. Even if the iPhone file size is smaller, the images load slower. I don't have a way of timing the actual file loading, but JPG's in the neighborhood of 5 MB seem to load virtually instantly, whereas even smaller HEIF's have a noticeable lag.

Interesting but nothing to get excited about just yet. Much more time needed for it to mature before replacing jpeg format. Thanks' for the interesting early look Gordon.

Can you perhaps to a similar video for Sony cameras? I have still to find a convenient way to add HEIF files when using new Sony cameras.

Gordon do you have any samples to download I'd be interested to see if it works without renaming on windows 10 or will we have to wait until there are production samples before images released?

Is the hassle of working with HIF worth not using RAW? I found working with HIF a pain in the ass since other software and windows cannot preview the files when I'm bulk processing.

Maybe it;s just me, but from the examples you showed, I thought the JPEG files were a bit clearer with better detail. Am I missing something?

Another excellent video. thank you. My concern is when HEIF becomes the standard, meaning Joe Public has to fork out for new equipment and software, and replace their functioning old technology. HEIF is part of progress, the same progress that says Adobe PSE 2021 requires an Intel 6th generation processor or newer. Some new programs require modern software, so it's new camera/ hardware/ software/ OS and no recouped costs. As you point out, HEIF files are smaller by 10%, and some vendors imply 50%; the HEIF improvement is notable to some but it's not important to me.

HEIF is just a container format for different media types and if you trust the sources on the web then there are way over 7000 patents involved if you want to add full support.This is an absolute legal nightmare and a huge risk for any vendor and impossible to handle for open source projects like web services and frameworks (the foundation of the web). Maybe giants like Apple or Canon can take that risk but I highly doubt that anyone else would be this adventurous without a really strong need. This need isn't on the horizon as JPEG, TIFF and PNG just work fine even though these formats are not perfect.

super subject it seems to me there is an urgent need for manufacturers to offer compatibility with this format.

Compression may have a future in video, but with the cost of storage media low & going lower, I use raw files for everything that doesn't get emailed.

Hi Gordon. Be good to have a update on this subject in 2023 👍 great channel thanks

Even the way you access the menu option to turn the HEIF file on is complicated on that Canon camera! Personally, I like the look of the SOOC JPEG's from your examples. A lot of modern cameras now offer 'lite' versions of their RAW format anyway so you may as well stick to shooting RAW & JPEG together as a safety net if needed.

HEIF is a long way off being widely established; and I honestly think that the latest jpegs are still way better as a high-compression format, and above all, long-established and useable in any software. I'm also happy that Nikon still provides the Tiff option in all its professional range of DSLR and Mirrorless camera bodies; because I shoot almost exclusively in Tiff.

For the short term, GIMP 2.10.14 has some early support for the HEIF format, but I cannot find any documentation to know if it's limited to 8 bit HEIF files, vs the 10 bit Canon files. As soon as Canon releases some sample 1D X Mark III HEIF files we can test it out. Canon will probably also have some software to support HEIF files, to distribute with the camera when it comes out in production form.

Thank you

Will it end up the same way as JPG2 did? Bit like the VHS/ Betamax war. Despite Betamax supposedly being better all round , VHS was established. Most pro's shoot RAW, i don't suppose the average point and shoot used gives hoot.

Interesting comparison Gordon - in many of them the jpg looks better - though is this a tonemapping issue rather than a heif format itself? Sounds like a chicken and egg situation with heif so far. Pretty much just apple and now canon. Of course is OSX doesn't support it when apple do with the iphone then that doesn't bode well! I wonder if it's going to be like JPG2000?

Thanks to watching this, I have set my Samsung Galaxy S10 to save HEIF files. Any improvement over a Jpeg is welcome from a phone camera, where the lenses are so small that every bit of help counts. Time will tell whether this cause me problems with social media sites, and even my own editing software! On the plus side, Windows 10 recognised it as an Affinity Photo file, so that maybe means that DxO Photolab isn't going to do so.The HEIF image is much better quality than the Jpeg from my phone.

Thanks for your early look into that subject. Nicely explained. From my pure amateur point of view I ask myself what would I right now gain when trying to use HEIF format instead of using RAW to jpg? It might change in future, but for now the answer is: nothing but trouble.

I'm looking forward to HEIF but, as you've already noticed, support is limited. But, now with Canon joining Apple as the two biggest camera companies using HEIF, support should hopefully not be far behind.

The HEIF files seems to have a less gradual transition between tones, but we should compare the jpeg and a heif file on a device that can handle both formats. Have you thought of screen recording a Mac or a iPad that is able to read the two formats back and forth without any issue?

thx Gordon

Two questions: 1) Do you think existing cameras like the R or RP will see this format in a future firmware update? Do you think software companies like Adobe, On One and Affinity will include the option to export to a HEIF file vs JPEG?

That banding issue has to be resolved in the before the format is widely accepted. However, Great Information Thanks

Good luck getting people to switch. JPG is the standard that anyone on any computer/phone/TV whatever can open. The teething problems of even opening it in this video show that it's already DOA. And why would any serious photographer use these compression files anyway until the final upload to FB or DA or wherever? I only ever shoot in RAW, and I only have an EOS 550D.

i had HEIF activated on my work phone (samsung s10e) and had to stop it cos nothing could read it, on my work phone i dont have time to edit file names. thanks for producing this video, HEIF is clearly the future but software has some way to go for adoption evidently.

Can we not have straight out Camera HEIF ?

Yeah, and you have to pay for the CODEC from Microsoft (or at least I did) What was wrong with BMP anyway...and horse drawn carts and steam locomotives...all this new fangled stuff is just a fad, Humbug! I am using this codec for video and still but as far as quality goes I really see no difference, I probably need to check the difference in the file sizes after compression. Thanks again Gordon for another interesting video! One question for you though - How Editable are HE files? If you re-edit and keep saving them after resizing etc. do they deteriorate in quality like JPG? Regarding your comparison photos, it would have been interesting to have seen the RAW images as part of the comparison too. The distant fringing on those mountain shots looks horrible on the HE file compared to the JPG. I bet though that you will be still shooting your photos in RAW!

Canon have time to smooth out the software to solve many of the issues that Gordon has brought up or have an immediate update available as is often the case with new cameras. The exposure difference needs fixing along with the negative differences noted. Many replies here already note a preference for jpgs as shown at the moment, which is hardly encouraging for Canon. Once more a company is getting a bunch of favoured testers and users to find out what needs fixing before the release of production cameras.

Bit hard to judge them trough a youtube video as that transcodes the image to VP9 before we get to see it. Since I use raw + small jpg I wouldn't mind switching to raw + heic if the heic's are even smaller would be nice if adobe were to make it a format you could save to

The JPEG is like MP3 it won't go nowhere and after 100+ years.

Definitely need a better format to hold highlight detail in a lossy form.

Just shoot lossless compressed raw then convert to JPEG, thats the best option for heavy photo editing. If going for very minimal editing JPEGS should be fine especially if just posting it in facebook or IG.

Coming back four years later to this video to report that the HEIF stuff has not gone as far as I would like. I just bought a Canon R50 (super sale on Canon refurbished), and I wanted to shoot in HEIF (or rather HIF for Canon). My original intent was to shoot only in HIF while hot air ballooning (small camera size helps), send the photos to my iPhone, and then easily share high-quality images to my friends (majority iPhone users). I'll outline my annoyances below: Just like you outlined here, the menu is pretty obtuse and then there's that Highlight Tone Priority thing that I don't find well explained. Then I noticed that I could not select a "User defined Picture Profile". Okay, fine, I'll just adjust the regular ones... Then, I wanted to transfer a test HIF image to my iPhone with Canon's app. Couldn't do it. The camera must convert the HIF into a JPG first before the app will accept it to my phone. So, a computer must become an intermediate to share these HIF photos. This immediately puts HEIF into an unusable spot for me and I might as well just shoot RAW anyway if a conversion is mandatory. Also, even I do share the HIF directly, I don't know if anyone can view them. I guess the iPhone doesn't like HIF (much like what you showed with the programs in this video), instead of HEIF, and nothing has changed in the last four years to address that. I guess I'll just shoot JPGs for now. Hasselblad's recent HEIF update for the X2D works just fine with my iPhone - though I don't intend to use anything less than RAW with my X2D (note: Phocus 2 Mobile confusingly has not been updated to properly label HEIFs, it calls them RAWs). I'm just surprised that Canon's HIF just can't work for me even four years later after they first introduced it.

Cool subject Gordon. I don't think the transition to the new firmat will happen in the near future, not in cameras or in good application support. Regarding pictures shown the 2 last pictures I preferred the new format , the rest preferred the jpgs.

Not the improvement I expected, but would be more interested to see them shot at same shutter speed to maintain the exposure which might benefit the heif.

Not so sure about smaller. Just playing around on my R5 shows lower shot capacity with HEIF using the same card.

An interesting explanation Gordon. The camera industry seems terribly conservative in some ways, I've often wondered why in the past apart from one camera (I think), nobody offered DNG as a digital format on their cameras, might they do the same with HEIF ? With regards to DNG, I am sure that claims in the light of technology advancements, by manufacturers saying that their native RAW formats are better is probably true but equally and if they had got on board, DNG may have evolved too. However today with a shrunken market, heavy competition and a need to survive, cooperation with competitors is unlikely to happen, ho hum :)

Hmm I think the comparison should been done with the photo in heif and jpg and not on converted ones from the camera (jpg)

Unless smartphones will use it its doa. Besides ... who the hell would shoot JPG with the 1DXIII ... And please save me the comment raw files are too big for upload etc. Ive uploaded over Dual ISDN 144kbaud 20 years ago, nowdays we have 10-100times the bandwith and more. Cheers for the info Gordon...

The thing I'm not sure about is, do we know how to display, or covert the 10bit HEIF files correctly? Without the proper way, we can't see the benefits and may even see worse results.

Beware HEIF files contain, in addition to the compressed image, rendering instructions. I do not know what rendering instructions are included by CANON in its HEIF files. I think CANON should adjust the rendering instruction in its HEIF files so that it emulates the aspect of the JPEG files. Taking that into account, at this early stage, I wonder what the meaning of this test is. It's kind of comparing Raw to JPEG.

Not too impressed. Looks like you may need to carry out comparisons when you get an updated Canon DPP4 software. I dont think Canon would have given the option to record HEIF with giving it a good test in-house. I dont shoot K's a week/day so I will stick to raw.

Well, as others have said.....it's early days yet, i guess time will tell. As for the photo comparisons, hmmm.....seems a bit " horses for courses ", to me, or in other words....very subjective. For now, i'm happy to keep shooting Jpeg + RAW, that way, i have the best of both worlds.

Just re watched. I wonder if you had of set the camera in manual, same exposure, the detail in the clouds etc would have been more alike. As you say, plenty of time to do more in-depth tests when the camera becomes available and Canon software.

Thank you Gordon...very informative....you need more hats. :)

I’ll just keep using RAW. JPEG as a backup.

IN THEORY HEIF should/would be great - cant imagine that fuji of all other brands would benefit most with at least giving people the option to shoot in HEIF (unless i missed something in the PRO3) - since there's still a considerable amount of shooters who go with JPEG and make their custom settings mixing the film simulation and different contrast and color white balance in the camera and being able to pull higher bit rate with those files to post quickly straight from camera to phone to online makes the shooting experience more stream line as some might wish to have.

Well, the stuff immediately following @05:06 is a killer for me! The "line" along the mountains, and that totally hokey-looking HEIF'd sun @05:54 are absolute deal-stoppers! Horrible! I can't see anyone accepting that! It's laughably bad! I'll not be rushing to get a camera because of HEIF!

I have an xt-5 and I tested out a jpeg picture vs heif picture. The heif looked FAR better. I was really suprised at how much better it looked. I thought perhaps the settings may have changed so I tried it again and got the same results. Definitely will never go back to jpeg now.

Hi Gordon, any chance you've considered further investigations into the HEIF format ala Nikon Z8? I consider embracing HDR imagery (HEIF stills) as my next logical artistic pathway and have, in fact, been accumulating HDR (video) content with my current Lumix gear. The Z8's 45.7 MP stills (and 8K 60P) are a big draw to me as I consider moving off of Panasonic since they've deprioritized 8K acquisition earlier this year and have never followed up with their HLG (HEIF) Photo (as found on my S1's). That, and I've tossed in the towel waiting for their much-ballyhooed Organic/Global Shutter/Wide-DR sensor ever to find its way out of their garage workshop and into a working camera as promised back in 2019 IBC. So, Nikon Z8 HEIF?! Your thoughts and insights would be most welcomed should you decide the subject is worthwhile. Thanks so much for this overview! Best, Jimbo :)

With Canon, Sony and Fuji now all supporting HEIF, it would be interesting to see where things stand now in 2023.

A bit difficult to compare pictures of different exposures. The last picture suggests a higher dynamic range, though. But the blurry band along the mountain ridge in the third picture (which is also seen in the first photo) looks really bad, I think. That is certainly not a price I'd be willing to pay for a bit of extra dynamic range! But of course it might just be a JPEG artefact from the conversion. If you “zoom” to 100% on the camera screen, can you see if the band is visible in the original HEIF image? And smaller file size is not a concern for me, since I can keep taking RAW+JPEG on a 64gb card for 2 or 3 years without filling it, in spite of the fact that I take many times more pictures now than I did in the film days. JPEG has never been replaced, simply because the need isn’t there. Otherwise they would have gone with PNG a long time ago.

The converted Heif files looked much worse than the standard jpgs. More clipped highlights.

If the HEIF version of the file is just 10% smaller, then its is a big progress. Remember JPEG is 8bit and HEIF is 10bit, as I understand it correctly.

I think the really cheap Canon DSLRs use quite old DIGIC processors, and maybe sensors too.

How open HIF in windows!?

Zeros and ones, it still won't beat an actual physical print and the Polaroid magic.

"I find their lack of faith disturbing..." 😆 You should have force-choked those PR reps until they gave you a straight answer. Any idea how long before Adobe fully supports HEIF in all its products?

* IMPORTANT * hello guys I SHOT A WEDDING IN SONY A7M4 IN HIF FORMAT NOW THE IMAGES ARE UNSUPPORTED EVERYWHERE (TRIED ADOBE BRIDGE, IMAZING, IMAGING EDGE ) !! I TRIED EVERY POSSIBLE WAY ON THE INTERNET HOW MUCH I TRIED I HAVENT FOUND ANY SOLUTION..THEN UPLOADING THOSE HIF FILES TO MY GOOGLE PHOTOS APPLICATION THROUGH WEB HELPED FINALLY THEY CONVERTED INTO JPG'S I'M FINALLY AT PEACE NOW.. HOPE THIS HELPS SOMEONE LIKE ME

As every technology, HEIF need more device to adapt it, for example, it took Microsoft years, until Windows finally recognised RAW files.

Sería interesante ver una foto tomada originalmente en formato jpeg y compararla con otra foto tomada en formato heif. Al convertir las imagenes varian los valores originales.

Shooting HEIF (10-bit) is better than shooting in JPG (8-bit) *With the HEIF format, rather than compress and lose quality, Canon packs more image data in. So shadows and highlights are much richer with the HEIF format. However, not all devices and sofware's yet support HEIF (10-bit) file formats and therefore might require or force the file to be converted to an 8-bit format. If the HEIF (10-bit) is converted to JPG (8-bit) HEIF loses its 10-bit advantage, and colours seem to be misplaced, making the images look muddy or have a slight cast of greyish brown shadow. Therefore, shooting in 10-bit HEIF format and then having to convert to JPG is worse than shooting with JPG in the first place.

HEIF kills your image quality, on the iPhone at least. The photos are very compressed and half the size or less than JPEG shots. They are noticeably more blurry, smeary and just awful quality overall when looking at them alongside the JPEG on a computer.

HEIF converted to JPEG looks like it’s just a little less overall exposure and contrast with a drop in highlights and less blacks crushed. The defining lines in the mountain ridge and trees I have seen a type of in images where at contrasting points where highlights are heavily dropped and shadows heavily raised. It tells me that possibly the image was pushed too far that it makes those kinds of artifacts. I suppose we’d like to get to a point where we can shoot a straight out of camera image and be done with it. Most of the time the camera pretty much gets it right. But how will a camera know what you want to see more of? I know some cameras have a type of HDR built in that can help but even then, if you are a photographer you should be in control and not the camera so it looks like post processing even for simple things is not going away any time soon. But I’m always for trying to get a better straight out of camera image with out have to post process. I believe these are the next steps.

Adobe RGB or RGBs? Bring back Jpeg2000! (jk). Hoping more websites and apps will start use HEIF/ HIF; I look forward to using it.

I've been using Photoscape X to edit HEIF files. It's a great app.

Prefer the JPEGs except on the clouds above the mountain that have better detail on the HEIF.

In almost every case I preferred the JPEG. The highlight rolloff on those HEIF files is HORRENDOUS!!! Maybe it's just the conversion to JPEG that's causing the issue but right now I see zero benefit to using HEIF until it's natively supported by PS & LR. I'm happy Canon has taken the lead here in moving the format forward but this implementation as it stands isn't going to do much to encourage people to make the switch.

Geez! JPEG sounds just fine!

I think for serious photographers this issue is irrelevant. If you really care about image quality you will be shooting in RAW anyway. On my smaller memory cards I can get over 1,500 RAW files (and over 4,000 JPEGs if I bothered with them). I have never shot 1,500 photos in a day and I carry plenty of spare memory cards "just in case", so what the hell does it matter what lossy compression format is available?

I suspect that any new format is unlikely to replace something as established and widely used as JPEG, unless it can hit people with a, “Wow, isn’t that really something!” Otherwise, good enough will be good enough.

Ah the old "taste" thing, eh? Ok I don't feel so naive now.

I find HEIF good but not without its problems. Its still not raw, neither in data it containins or compatibility. If you need to save space I think developing a well compressed lossless RAW format like they do in video, Sony or BlackMagic raw for example. That would make sense. If you need to shoot ready made files to send them to others, than you still have problem of compatibility. Someone still need to convert them to JPEG which is most widely compatible for web use and in other applications. HEIF is a bit like JPEG 2000 format except Canon and Apple are going to make a big push to make the change, but its a move in reverse in my opinion. We need compressed lossless RAW files more than we need HEIF on our cameras because its a problem of having to convert it to JPEG for compatibility reasons, and you still are not getting same amount of data as with RAW. Its nor here nor there kind of format, that on top of all that still requires lot of processing power from the Camera to compress the image. I won't underestimate Apple and Canon as being able to influence standards, but I feel as a concept is not really the best solution. Just my 2 cents.

What if JPEG fights back and introduces HDR JPEG? :)

HEIF needs more polishing.

Rarely use Jpeg image files, this change seems pretty pointless to me ? Especially if it is not backwards compatable! Even less useful 👎

I seriously prefer the JPEGs here. I wonder if it's because, over the years, the rendering of this file format has burned itself so deep into the neural pathways of my vision that I subconsciously refuse to accept a different approach; or maybe the displaying software is just not there yet to showcase the benefits of HEIF properly to doubters like myself.

The jpegs look way better. I don't like sunsets in digital (film is better) the sunset in heif ,THAT IS BAD. If that is the way the camera processed it ,then it's very bad .Jpeg from camera are good .A lot of people shoot just jpeg.I don't see people able to do that with heif.

Jpeg looks better. Perhaps user error when converting the other format to jpg because the images dont look good at all...

HEIF vs RAW next🏃🏽‍♂️

Why can't we use TIFF...

Actually samsung uses HEIF format

The jpegs look better

The Jpegs look better

JPEG-XL that is future format. HEIF is a paid and, let's say politely, can't stand to JPEG-XL.