A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
p.1 #1A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
HEIF is a storage format that has recently migrated from the motion video world, starting with Canon R5 in 2020. HEIF is actually a container standard (like TIFF) with one file encoding standard of interest to us called HEVC (aka H.265). HEIF in general is hugely complicated, heavily patent encumbered, and video oriented: no surprise that it took forever to show up in our still-photography cameras. Making this possible is standards support for single-frame encoding, combined with advanced hardware for video that now appears in everything including fridges (not kidding). So the A1, for example, can just employ its video circuit to generate a single frame at no extra cost and with super energy efficiency.
Question to myself was whether to switch over to HEIF after almost three decades of JPEG photography. Concerns and motivations: image size on the storage medium, software support, encoding/decoding performance, image quality, DR. For an initial test, I use a fixed scene with continuous house lighting, tripod, and a large range of illumination and colors. A1 settings of interest: ES, low ISO, f/5.6, manual focus, custom color balance. The idea was a reproducible imaging environment with no change except the encoding.
First observation:
Indeed, the JPEG file is 3x the size of HEIF. The claimed superior compression of HEIF is further reinforced by my PNG intermediate files which indicate much more content in the HEIF sourced images. PNG is an image-oriented data format with lossless compression. As we will see below, the extra content is shadow detail.
Here is the scene as rendered by JPEG versus HEIF, both in SOOC appearance and also after boosting brightness. I use a recent version of GIMP with HEIF support, and process the image on a canvas with 32-bit floating-point values per channel per pixel (i.e. 96-bit pixels):
Two interesting and kinda contradictory observations. First, the JPEG image has a green cast that gets worse in the shadows. Second, the JPEG has a superior roll-off into the burned-out highlights. Note that both JPEG and HEIF images are generated by the camera, although probably using different data paths. There is a mention in Wikipedia about conversions between JPEG and YCbCr that produce a green cast due to integer rounding.
Here are two crops, first at 200% scale and second at 100% scale:
JPEG is clearly more grainy, exhibits an objectionable green cast, poorer detail especially in colored areas, and the characteristic JPEG color splotches. From a historical perspective, I'm actually pretty impressed with this JPEG engine (except the cast). Meanwhile, HEIF is superior across the board, and retains impressive detail and color fidelity. The third panel is just for fun: ISO 50 doubles the photon density to the benefit of the shadows while sac'ing highlight protection. This used to be called "expose to the right". No-one cares anymore in this high DR era.
I pick up another 1 stop of DR by the 4x stacking. A1 HEIF 4:2:2 is encoded with 10 bits per channel (I believe), so the third panel has 12 bits of DR which is still less than the native sensor capabilty. Sony RAW will obviously win, but that's a different topic.
Side note: HEVC decoding to RGB as used internally by computer software requires no complicated color-space algorithms, so GIMP support is not a suspect in the highlight or color cast issues. In fact, Apple Preview loads both SOOC files and renders them with the same warts. HEVC rendering is not in the same class of challenge as RAW rendering where no two software vendors deliver the same image.
One explanation for the observed JPEG image quality: if highlights are better protected, then the shadow pixels are drawn from the lower-order portion of the response curve where noise levels are higher.
In summary, I will use HEIF but still PP to JPEG for any images that face the public. I do need to investigate the A1 JPEG color cast because JPEG could still serve with its graceful highlight management.
Question to myself was whether to switch over to HEIF after almost three decades of JPEG photography. Concerns and motivations: image size on the storage medium, software support, encoding/decoding performance, image quality, DR. For an initial test, I use a fixed scene with continuous house lighting, tripod, and a large range of illumination and colors. A1 settings of interest: ES, low ISO, f/5.6, manual focus, custom color balance. The idea was a reproducible imaging environment with no change except the encoding.
First observation:
Indeed, the JPEG file is 3x the size of HEIF. The claimed superior compression of HEIF is further reinforced by my PNG intermediate files which indicate much more content in the HEIF sourced images. PNG is an image-oriented data format with lossless compression. As we will see below, the extra content is shadow detail.
Here is the scene as rendered by JPEG versus HEIF, both in SOOC appearance and also after boosting brightness. I use a recent version of GIMP with HEIF support, and process the image on a canvas with 32-bit floating-point values per channel per pixel (i.e. 96-bit pixels):
Two interesting and kinda contradictory observations. First, the JPEG image has a green cast that gets worse in the shadows. Second, the JPEG has a superior roll-off into the burned-out highlights. Note that both JPEG and HEIF images are generated by the camera, although probably using different data paths. There is a mention in Wikipedia about conversions between JPEG and YCbCr that produce a green cast due to integer rounding.
Here are two crops, first at 200% scale and second at 100% scale:
JPEG is clearly more grainy, exhibits an objectionable green cast, poorer detail especially in colored areas, and the characteristic JPEG color splotches. From a historical perspective, I'm actually pretty impressed with this JPEG engine (except the cast). Meanwhile, HEIF is superior across the board, and retains impressive detail and color fidelity. The third panel is just for fun: ISO 50 doubles the photon density to the benefit of the shadows while sac'ing highlight protection. This used to be called "expose to the right". No-one cares anymore in this high DR era.
I pick up another 1 stop of DR by the 4x stacking. A1 HEIF 4:2:2 is encoded with 10 bits per channel (I believe), so the third panel has 12 bits of DR which is still less than the native sensor capabilty. Sony RAW will obviously win, but that's a different topic.Side note: HEVC decoding to RGB as used internally by computer software requires no complicated color-space algorithms, so GIMP support is not a suspect in the highlight or color cast issues. In fact, Apple Preview loads both SOOC files and renders them with the same warts. HEVC rendering is not in the same class of challenge as RAW rendering where no two software vendors deliver the same image.
One explanation for the observed JPEG image quality: if highlights are better protected, then the shadow pixels are drawn from the lower-order portion of the response curve where noise levels are higher.
In summary, I will use HEIF but still PP to JPEG for any images that face the public. I do need to investigate the A1 JPEG color cast because JPEG could still serve with its graceful highlight management.
May 23, 2026 at 10:52 PM
p.1 #2A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
So far I have found out one use case for the HEIF (on A7RV):
It is when I take a picture in dark (on tripod so lower ISOs like 100 or 320) and I want to review it magnified and look into dark parts of it using EVF. I am primarily shooting raw.
On A7RIV the camera would decode the RAW, but it was quite slow taking like 3 seconds to magnify. But it is showing a lot of details in dark parts.
On A7RV the camera would show embedded JPG (about 1MB) from the RAW which is fast. That one is highly compressed and those shadows are blurred and blocky. I switch from RAW to RAW+JPG it is better, the camera would show the normal JPG not the embeded one, but with RAW+HEIF it is even better in the shadows.
It is when I take a picture in dark (on tripod so lower ISOs like 100 or 320) and I want to review it magnified and look into dark parts of it using EVF. I am primarily shooting raw.
On A7RIV the camera would decode the RAW, but it was quite slow taking like 3 seconds to magnify. But it is showing a lot of details in dark parts.
On A7RV the camera would show embedded JPG (about 1MB) from the RAW which is fast. That one is highly compressed and those shadows are blurred and blocky. I switch from RAW to RAW+JPG it is better, the camera would show the normal JPG not the embeded one, but with RAW+HEIF it is even better in the shadows.
May 23, 2026 at 11:46 PM
p.1 #3A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
HEIF is faster to process and write with my A1 (RAW+JPEG) but most of windows apps are relying on Microsoft HEIF driver and it didn't show Sony HEIF correctly
May 24, 2026 at 01:22 AM
p.1 #4A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
Thanks for the detailed post. The JPEG green cast is really bad. I tried to use HEIF on my A1, but as a primary raw shooter, I did not see many benefits. The issue is compatibility, especially with the 4:2:2 format. My Android phone cannot read it, so no ability to quickly share a picture. Lightroom does support it, though, which is good, but other applications or websites (ex: Flickr) have trouble with it.
That seems to be the same issue with JPEGXL, a great JPEG alternative with poor support, especially from camera vendors. And with the quality of sensors for at least 10 years, JPEG is really a poor format stuck in the past.
That seems to be the same issue with JPEGXL, a great JPEG alternative with poor support, especially from camera vendors. And with the quality of sensors for at least 10 years, JPEG is really a poor format stuck in the past.
May 24, 2026 at 03:20 AM
p.1 #5A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
rico wrote:
[...]
In summary, I will use HEIF but still PP to JPEG for any images that face the public. I do need to investigate the A1 JPEG color cast because JPEG could still serve with its graceful highlight management.
Thank you rico.
One thing troubles me. I found this in the manual:
"When recording in the HEIF format with [HLG Still Image] set to [Off], the color space is recorded in sRGB. When [HLG Still Image] is set to [On], it is recorded in the BT.2100 color space (BT.2020 color gamut)."
I have my A1 set to save image in RAW (card 1) and JPG Extra Fine (Card 2). JPGs in aRGB. The second card works as a backup for Card 1. I have never needed it but guess that's only because I have it.
Anyway, switching to HEIF 4.2.0 or 4.2.2 make the camera switch to HLG Still Image Off as the "On" position isn't possible when shooting in raw format.
So, now the backup files are in sRGB. It's not a catastrophy but I would have preferred aRGB. HEIF 4.2.2 is probably better.
Did you notice if writing times are affected?
[...]
In summary, I will use HEIF but still PP to JPEG for any images that face the public. I do need to investigate the A1 JPEG color cast because JPEG could still serve with its graceful highlight management.
Thank you rico.
One thing troubles me. I found this in the manual:
"When recording in the HEIF format with [HLG Still Image] set to [Off], the color space is recorded in sRGB. When [HLG Still Image] is set to [On], it is recorded in the BT.2100 color space (BT.2020 color gamut)."
I have my A1 set to save image in RAW (card 1) and JPG Extra Fine (Card 2). JPGs in aRGB. The second card works as a backup for Card 1. I have never needed it but guess that's only because I have it.
Anyway, switching to HEIF 4.2.0 or 4.2.2 make the camera switch to HLG Still Image Off as the "On" position isn't possible when shooting in raw format.
So, now the backup files are in sRGB. It's not a catastrophy but I would have preferred aRGB. HEIF 4.2.2 is probably better.
Did you notice if writing times are affected?
May 24, 2026 at 12:43 PM
|
p.1 #6A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
Jonas B wrote:
Did you notice if writing times are affected?
For my testing HEIF is faster to write.
20 fps lossless RAW+JPEG will get around 64 files with 150 mbps card (Sony Tough M)
20 fps lossless RAW+HEIF will get around 94 files with 150 mbps card (Sony Tough M)
(20 fps cRAW+cRAW will be arund 153 frames written w/o delay)
Did you notice if writing times are affected?
For my testing HEIF is faster to write.
20 fps lossless RAW+JPEG will get around 64 files with 150 mbps card (Sony Tough M)
20 fps lossless RAW+HEIF will get around 94 files with 150 mbps card (Sony Tough M)
(20 fps cRAW+cRAW will be arund 153 frames written w/o delay)
May 24, 2026 at 03:24 PM
p.1 #7A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
jtra wrote:
...
I switch from RAW to RAW+JPG it is better, the camera would show the normal JPG not the embeded one, but with RAW+HEIF it is even better in the shadows.
Yeah, I see the superior playback detail with RAW+HEIF. However, playback has no auto-gain—no manual gain either—so the darkest areas are entirely invisible until the image is unloaded and processed.
...
I switch from RAW to RAW+JPG it is better, the camera would show the normal JPG not the embeded one, but with RAW+HEIF it is even better in the shadows.
Yeah, I see the superior playback detail with RAW+HEIF. However, playback has no auto-gain—no manual gain either—so the darkest areas are entirely invisible until the image is unloaded and processed.
May 24, 2026 at 10:54 PM
p.1 #8A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
q-w-z wrote:
HEIF is faster to process and write with my A1 (RAW+JPEG) but most of windows apps are relying on Microsoft HEIF driver and it didn't show Sony HEIF correctly
I notice complaints about the Microsoft HEIF software. Worse is the need to download the support from the MS Store and, at their discretion, pay for it. Welcome to the tangled world of patent bungling...I mean, bundling.
HEIF is faster to process and write with my A1 (RAW+JPEG) but most of windows apps are relying on Microsoft HEIF driver and it didn't show Sony HEIF correctly
I notice complaints about the Microsoft HEIF software. Worse is the need to download the support from the MS Store and, at their discretion, pay for it. Welcome to the tangled world of patent bungling...I mean, bundling.
May 24, 2026 at 11:00 PM
p.1 #9A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
Jonas B wrote:
Anyway, switching to HEIF 4.2.0 or 4.2.2 make the camera switch to HLG Still Image Off as the "On" position isn't possible when shooting in raw format.
So, now the backup files are in sRGB. It's not a catastrophy but I would have preferred aRGB. HEIF 4.2.2 is probably better.
Did you notice if writing times are affected?
Hmm, maybe I should actually read the manual. The change in gamma curve is interesting and could affect PP to access and correctly incorporate the encoded DR. HEVC comes with its own color-space but I doubt it explains the green cast. As for write times, JPEG and HEIF are about the same, but RAW Compressed is much slower—no surprise.
Anyway, switching to HEIF 4.2.0 or 4.2.2 make the camera switch to HLG Still Image Off as the "On" position isn't possible when shooting in raw format.
So, now the backup files are in sRGB. It's not a catastrophy but I would have preferred aRGB. HEIF 4.2.2 is probably better.
Did you notice if writing times are affected?
Hmm, maybe I should actually read the manual.
The change in gamma curve is interesting and could affect PP to access and correctly incorporate the encoded DR. HEVC comes with its own color-space but I doubt it explains the green cast. As for write times, JPEG and HEIF are about the same, but RAW Compressed is much slower—no surprise.May 24, 2026 at 11:19 PM
p.1 #10A1 demo of HEIF vs JPEG
rico wrote:
I switch from RAW to RAW+JPG it is better, the camera would show the normal JPG not the embeded one, but with RAW+HEIF it is even better in the shadows.Yeah, I see the superior playback detail with RAW+HEIF. However, playback has no auto-gain—no manual gain either—so the darkest areas are entirely invisible until the image is unloaded and processed.
Can't we use DRO for this?
I found the DRO trick from Phillip Reeve very interesting (see here https://phillipreeve.net/blog/hacks-sony-a7-series-tips-and-tricks/ ), and I use it all the time for wide dynamic range scenes.
jtra wrote
...I switch from RAW to RAW+JPG it is better, the camera would show the normal JPG not the embeded one, but with RAW+HEIF it is even better in the shadows.
Can't we use DRO for this?
I found the DRO trick from Phillip Reeve very interesting (see here https://phillipreeve.net/blog/hacks-sony-a7-series-tips-and-tricks/ ), and I use it all the time for wide dynamic range scenes.
May 25, 2026 at 05:43 AM