Jump to content

Talk:High Efficiency Image File Format

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 12 November 2021 (Signing comment by 117.20.69.166 - "→Biased comparison photos: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Licensing?

Nothing about intellectual monopolies and licensing? -Reagle (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The silence is deafening – all we know so far is a priori knowledge. We know:

  • Set theory: HEVC patents that apply to HEIF ⊆ HEVC patents
  • Patents are patents: You don't escape them by using them in a new product, reimplementing or even reinventing them. → The use of HEVC patents in HEIF, if any, is bound to comply with the relevant patent holders' demands. For what patent law is concerned, they may demand whatever.
  • Rules of ISO/ITU-T: Contributors must offer patent licensing under FRAND terms (i.e. not demand whatever). The demands of patent holders in the case of HEVC is patent licenses. → The use of HEVC patents in HEIF, if any, is specifically bound by HEVC patent licensing, unless otherwise permitted by patent holders.

I tried (not as rigorously as this), but it got reverted[1] as "original research"… Is a priori knowledge (e.g. "a human on Mars would not be weightless because of this thing called gravity") original research? 84.208.177.88 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HEIF is a container format. It stores images which are compressed using HEVC. So of course HEVC patents may apply to the compression and decompression steps (depending on the HEVC patents... some features may not be supported in an HEIF image). In general, such a section on a Wikipedia article could be construed as legal guidance, or legal advice (something only lawyers should engage in). You won't find a lot of articles giving any definitive guidance at this point. The patent situation around HEVC is still being sorted out by all of the companies and organizations involved. Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested in a fair judgement of pros and cons, I think it would be dishonest of us to say "no, the cons are for lawyers only". In my opinion, this essay has a neutral point of view (excellently covers both pros and cons).84.208.177.88 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was the person who originally removed the section ([2]). I did this because it was unsourced, and additionally a piece of original research. I now see some sources are supplied. As long as the article text only states what the sources say (and no more), there shouldn't be a problem with it. Stickee (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia is claiming it has patents on the HEIF container format itself, and those are not royalty-free. You can get a royalty-free license for non-commercial purposes (see [3]), but for commercial purposes, as far as I understand you still need to license HEIF even if you only intend to use it with an AV1 or JPEG payload, or risk a patent infringement lawsuit from Nokia (which might be bogus because it's "just a container", but that's for the judge to decide and you'll have to pay lawyers first anyway). So I think the claim in the article that "HEIF itself is a container that is not subject to royalty fees." is potentially untrue.

In my opinion HEIF not "just a container" since it also contains some nontrivial functionality like grid compositions, rotation, etc. It's not just a simple wrapper. I don't think any of that functionality is novel (it's not doing anything that wasn't already possible in e.g. XCF or PSD, for example, so there is clear prior art), so I think patent claims would not hold up. But still, Nokia has clearly NOT given a full royalty-free license (including for commercial purposes), and even if their patents may not hold up in court, they can still use them to troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:241F:D700:5C4F:7468:D5F9:6AAE (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted non-free content

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://nokiatech.github.io/heif/technical.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Kb.au (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High efficiency image c*

What does HEIC stand for? HEI codec? —Michael Z. 2017-09-15 14:56 z

  • Two filename extensions can be used for the HEIF container format, .heif itself, or .heic – the latter being an identifier that the file inside the container was definitely encoded using the HEVC encoder, rather than another encoded file type like JPEG et al. So the .heic filename extension is not strictly an acronym of anything, but rather an amalgam of the container format (HEIF) and the encoder format within it (HEVC; often known better as h.265). I added a brief explanation as part of the "Implementation" subsection, that pertains to Apple's filename extension usage. Jimthing (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of acronym

There is an issue with the sources for the pronunciation of the acronym HEIF. They can all be traced back to one primary source, Apple's WWDC 2017 session Working with HEIF and HEVC. The claimed pronunciation in the article currently, is just how 46 % of the engineers on a "floor" at Apple have chosen to pronounce it. There is not even a majority on Apple's "floor". I would argue for waiting for real secondary sources outside of Apple, and Apple fan boys, before make a claim about the correct pronunciation of an MPEG standard. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's your interpretation of facts. One cite happened to be an Apple engineer, and even more pertinently, an Apple engineer at a technical summation meeting (Apple being the company who has released the first mass use of the MPEG format, of course, so could be argued to know just a little something about it). No idea what your 46% made-up figure, other Apple majority on "floor" rant, nor your comment on Apple "fan boys" somehow being a source; hence all entirely irrelevant. The other is an entirely separate third-party established journalist source; which is perfectly acceptable for WP citation on this article and just about everywhere else on WP. Jimthing (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop lying Jimthing, and accusing me of making stuff up. You lied about Wikipedia never citing sources for pronunciation. Which was proven to be patently false. You accuse me of making up the 46 % stat that is in your freakin' reference (see my direct link above, to 1280 seconds into the session, or view the presentation slides from the session). You accuse me of a "rant", when I claim exactly what is in your freakin' reference. The opinion of a small group of engineers at Apple, atnd an Apple centric podcast (which obviously used Apple as their source), are not reliable sources of the correct pronunciation of an MPEG standard, of Finnish (Nokia) etymology. If these your two sources claimed PNG was pronounced pong, then you would cite that? They have no more authority of claiming the correct pronunciation of PNG than they have of HEIF. "Apple being the company who has released the first mass use of the MPEG format, of course, so could be argued to know just a little something about it", and yet in your source they claim that their choice of pronunciation is just than, their choice, their opinion. You literally have "No idea" what is in your references (which I linked directly to on 22:01, 14 November 2017, in edit summary, and which you have had plenty of time to check out). Do your research. Do not accuse me of making stuff up! 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say you made stuff up, but rather how you're choosing to interpret the graph given. The graph clearly shows the majority share of 46% beat out ALL THE OTHER pronunciations. And again, how do you know the podcaster is choosing to follow what was said on this particular presentation? Again, that's your interpretation. Jimthing (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What makes your "interpretation" better than that of a so called "IP-only user". What gives of a group of engineers at Apple the authority to claim the correct pronunciation of an MPEG standard? I argue to wait for source outside of Apple and Apple centric media, for pronunciation of a MPEG standard. You are "*misinterpreting* facts" to suit your claim for correct pronunciation. I make no claim in the article. You are. There is no rush in adding stuff to Wikipedia. Why don't you want to wait for better and more diverse sources? What is your agenda? 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't start conspiracy theories about users "agenda", that's just cheap! Of course all the media is going to be following Apple, as they're the first and main mass implementer of the standard in the just released iOS 11/macOS High Sierra, hence it's the main public discussions on the format and its use. So really your argument is circular and thus utterly pointless (if a New York Times or Guardian journo had video/audio, would they be copying it from Apple, or not, and would it matter?). The slide was meant as a humorous joke, not something to be taken literally. Other examples of videos at WWDC from engineers of various national/linguistic backgrounds had them pronouncing it the same 'HEEF' way (Davide Concion, Italian: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/513 / Arar Shah, Pakistani: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/503 ), so it's been widely adopted as the main pronunciation, regardless of how some others may/may not do it. Jimthing (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was you who first questioned my agenda: "As per talk; this IP-only user is *misinterpreting* facts to suit themselves.". Where have I mentioned any "conspiracy theories"? Is it cheaper than your lying about Wikipedia policy on citing references on pronunciation? Again, why don't you want to wait for better and more diverse sources, outside of Apple and Apple centric media? All the sources you cite above are from Apple. What does Apple's employees "various national/linguistic backgrounds" have to do with anything, when Apple clearly stated that they chose to pronounce it heef? It's "widely adopted as the main pronunciation", by Apple's engineers and Apple centric media. "Of course all the media is going to be following Apple, as they're the first and main mass implementer of the standard in the just released iOS 11/macOS High Sierra, hence it's the main public discussions on the format and its use.". Exactly, then why not wait for other implementers and their choices of pronunciation, and a consensus? 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DRNC. It explains why your actions here are not helpful. Jimthing (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do explain how that applies to my actions, and not yours. If you accuse me of doing something against Wikipedia policy, that you yourself are not guilty of, then please explain, so that I can avoid making the same mistakes again. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimthing, please specify. What exactly are you accusing me of? What is wrong, specifically, with wanting to wait for a pronunciation consensus, and not claim that the choice by Apple's engineers (and consequently Apple centric media) is the definitive correct pronunciation in a matter not exclusive to the Apple ecosystem? What is the rush? Is it that important to you that an acronym has a claimed pronunciation, that you can't wait for a diverse range of reliable sources? How is making a broad/definitive claim, based on a narrow selection of sources, "helpful"? 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not accusing you of anything, just being needlessly over argumentative and aggressive, rather than stepping back and thinking that someone searching WP for HEIF info may want to know how the thing is being pronounced. You keep saying the 'Apple centric media', when all they are, plain and simply, are tech journalists, that cover any and all tech companies, with Apple being just one of them (obviously they're quite popular currently, given its current size and influence at the moment in the tech marketplace). If some other company arrives to give us a new variant of saying it that's becoming popular, then it can always be edited again. But there is absolutely no reason to remove it under some expectation that may never happen, thus depriving readers in the meantime of the current situation. Jimthing (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources indicating there are other pronunciations? --NeilN talk to me 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At least the other pronunciations that members of Apple's engineer team proposed, when they where polled. See the link in my first post above, it links to 1280 seconds into the session (used by Jimthing as a source): Working with HEIF and HEVC. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not one – again, that was (very obviously) a humorous segment, but this editor doesn't seem to understand the difference, and has taken it as some kind of validation to his point, when it clearly isn't. I gave another two serious technical WWDC video presentations (linked above), that don't share a joke about its pronunciation whilst still managing to pronounce it the very same way. As Apple are virtually the only ones with products/services using the format, hence are going to be the ones talking about and being talked about by everyone else reporting it, this user thinks that means every journalist is "Apple centric" biased (or something, equally as absurd) simply because the source used an Apple-themed naming scheme in their own branding (again the NYT/Guardian comment I made above is entirely lost on them), despite the very fact that said journalist reports on a multifaceted tech reporting network; thus nullifying their very point. You couldn't make it up, lol! Jimthing (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Jimthing:. As I read your profile and the argument over a pronunciation, and your arguments directly above, I cannot stop thinking "This is how he justifies his belief his Apple stock will sell, by wasting copious amounts of his time over something so useless, whilst attempting to justify the expended time as some form of worthy 'techy' activity that it most certainly is not".

smh. Lord Help Us All — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.98.27.30 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Same user under another IP) Jimthing (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are insinuating that the above by 185.98.27.30 (I have never been to Iraq) is written by me, then I can assure you that it is not. I am not a religious person, and doesn't call upon God. I'm agnostic. I have only done edits of the heef thing from 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE. Do a text analysis if you don't trust me, the text above is not my writing. To clarify, I have no Apple stock, or connection to Apple (other than as a regular consumer). If anything, my arguments have been to not take Apple's word as gospel. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single official pronunciation. The official spec produced by MPEG doesn't say anything about pronunciation, and neither does the material published by Nokia two years ago or the requirements document published two years before that. I did some cursory searching in those documents and didn't find any mention of pronunciation. Just spelling out the letters as "H-E-I-F" is perfectly fine if that's what you want to do. Perhaps you could also say "he-if". Apparently, pronouncing it "heef" has become popular recently in some circles, and that's understandable because using only one syllable makes it quick and easy to say, but that's not the only reasonable way to pronounce "HEIF", and it's not official. The format was designed a few years ago (e.g., the cited requirements document is from mid-2013 and the first version of the spec was finished in mid-2015), but I suspect you won't find any publications that talk about how to pronounce the abbreviation that are older than Apple's product announcement of mid-2017. Mulligatawny (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. You explained what I was trying to communicate all this time, albeit clumsily compared to you. Finally someone that bother to do some research, and reason about the issue, instead of just claiming that they just know the single official pronunciation based on Apple's WWDC 2017 sessions, and news reporting about Apple, and reverting every opposing views ad infinitum without coherent arguments like yours. What you describe is why I have argued since my first post above, to wait for reliable and diverse sources, and industry consensus, before claiming a pronunciation on Wikipedia. "Just spelling out the letters as "H-E-I-F" is perfectly fine if that's what you want to do.". Exactly, there is no need for a pronunciation claim in the lead. So why not just remove it? Adding it prematurely is in my opinion a fools errand, by some edit war veteran thing who think its "interpretation" of the situation is the only possibly correct and "helpful" one, and "IP-only" users time isn't worth anything compared to "longtime WP users' time". 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mulligatawny: An admittedly slightly off topic (but I think rather pertinent) question, if you don't mind. Is there a way for an editor the get the attention of rational editor like yourself, if they fail to reason with another editor? Preferably with having to resort to what I now know is edit warring. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current "often pronounced" text seems like a reasonable compromise to me. IP, article talk pages usually have a list of WikiProjects interested in that article (e.g., Talk:MPEG-H). Posting a neutrally worded pointer on a WikiProject talk page to discussion on another talk page will often attract other interested editors. Alternatively, there are other options listed at WP:DRR. --NeilN talk to me 15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the article doesn't misrepresent the pronunciation as the single official pronunciation, but as the choice of pronunciation in some circles, I'm fine with it (and always would have been). (I borrowed Mulligatawny's excellent choice of words. Hope that's OK.) Thank you for the answer to my question. Neutrally worded pointer, got it. I have learned my lesson about not letting myself get triggered by, and copy actions of, repeatedly warring editors (no matter how "longtime" they are). 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:2DE (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

iPhones are sending .heic image files

This article is currently rather sadly unhelpful. Readers come here because suddenly people with iPhones are sending everyone .heic image files (by *default*) that cannot be opened. The article should plainly acknowledge this key fact, particularly that there is little support in the Windows world (at best). And the article should acknowledge that the problem is at least partly due to patent issues of some sort.

  • "Sep 25, 2017 - After updating your iPhone to iOS 11, you may have noticed that your photos are all .heic files instead of the ubiquitous .jpeg. If you're rather go back to shooting JPEG for now until you feel more ready to make the switch..."

Please add information to the article about tools (XnView? IrfanView?) that support access to these files.-73.61.15.139 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irfanview by Bosnian Irfan Skiljan[1], even an old one of 2014, version 4.38, shows .HEIC files all right in my Windows 7, and stores them in JPG, if you like. What happens to HEI containers with multiple pictures in them, I don’t know. Irfanview was famous making favicons back in <2004. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.irfanview.net/

Patent issues

Clearer statement of the patent implications for programs that work with HEIC files is needed.

I read the article and some of the references, and concluded that HEIC (which I understand to mean HEVC-encoded images in a HEIF container) is encumbered by patents. But Gimp on Debian 10 (from the main, i.e. free, repository) can create HEIC files. Generally the Debian people are very careful about patent issues, so this suggests that HEIC is not encumbered by patents. Obviously I'm confused. For many users, this is the single most important point about HEIC, and the article should state the position with crystal clarity. Sayitclearly (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, as I understand it, HEIF is simply a container format. There are 2 or 3 codecs already defined for usage in the container. But there's also a separate specification to store AV1 in the same container AV1#AV1 Image File Format (AVIF). The container itself is not believed to be patent encumbered, so you implement support for the container. I don't think there's any real doubt that even the subset of HEVC required for decoding HEIF with HEVC appears to be affected by patents see e.g. [4] [5]. As to what's happened with Debian, I guess either someone at Debian screwed up, or there's something about Debian's stance that you're not understanding. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supported Bit Depth?

What are the bit depths supported by HEIC and AVIF?--2A02:810A:86C0:6590:E16C:EDE7:4D98:EEFC (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half the storage space?

While the (non-technical) refs quote "half" the storage space, the comparison image shows 9.08kb to 9.15/9.16kb - hardly half. I'm suspecting the HEIF is more efficient for animations or videos, but seems to me that the assertion of half is misleading. Thoughts? peterl (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biased comparison photos

The JPG versions of the original image are all purposely encoded at a bad quality, IMO, to falsely highlight why HEIC is better. When I saved the original as JPG using Paint Shop Pro 7.02's default JPG quality, it was basically indistinguishable from the original. Compare my tests: https://i.imgur.com/HxC6D0b.png (image saved as PNG from the original image, my saved JPG, and the article's purposely low-quality JPG image). Or to toggle between both, open these two images in two browser tabs and flick between them: https://i.imgur.com/qdMYPhX.png (original), https://i.imgur.com/sswomAX.jpg (my JPG). Not much difference, right? My JPG looks infinitely better than all JPGs in the comparison shots. The article comparisons are obviously biased and not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.69.166 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your JPEG is 55 kB, whereas the original comparison is of images at around 9 kB each. Read the caption! — kashmīrī TALK 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the captions say 9 KB (approx), so? That just further proves the JPG images were saved at a crap quality. A real test is of JPG at its default quality, like I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.69.166 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format&oldid=1054768756"