No; they’re seperate. JPEG-XR was/is supported by Microsoft browsers (I can’t recall once they switched to Chromium that’s still the case with Edge)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 16 Pro Supports JPEG-XL Format
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
About supporting JPEG XL, but I haven't seen any official information. I would like to know how reliable this information is. Also, is this photo format the default for the iPhone 16 Pro, or does it require user settings? Personally, I think supporting this format is a good feature, as photos are currently the app that takes up the most storage on my phone, exceeding 40GB.
There’s still trade-offs towards why it’s shaky in support by major browsers.
AVIF for the foreseeable future better for animated images and etc making it more likely not replaced by JPEG-XL for such use cases.
I personally would love support for it on all major browsers and allow the market it play itself out being a handy lossless image format option
That's not my decision to make.
It sucks for the customers, but we aren't an Apple genius bar, the company is based in the UK as well so most people actually use Android devices. We aren't tech support.
In reality we make a perfectly reasonable request for photos in JPEG and go out of our way to try and help them but if they ultimately can't figure out how to do it even with our help then that's on them and Apple.
The fact is, a quick Google search and 5 minutes of your time will show you how to switch back to JPEG.
For incredibly obvious security reasons, we cannot download any files that customers upload to us, and the JPEG must be viewable in Zendesk.
The fact that one of the world's most prominent helpdesk systems still does not support HEIC should tell you very clearly that this is another problem invented by Apple so that they can market a solution.
We allow the customer's to get away with murder when it comes to refunds, they could and probably do stage most of the claims and the photos they provide, but its a "customer is always right" attitude and they get refunded as long as there is picture evidence for certain claims. You should be less eager to judge next time.
Again, you're rage baiting without acknowledging the context.
You can tell immediately who has never worked with work supplied equipment. Everything is locked down. Our policy is to help hundreds of thousands of customers each month with refunds.
We dont have the tools to convert these images, we can't even download them. But again, anyone working with computers provided by your employer would know this. Sadly the tech illiterate users are the ones that caused obsessive security, there's no way around it to go the extra mile for these customers.
Once again though, it's a case of Apple fanatics trying to deflect from the truth. No one uses HEIF for the many reasons that have already been discussed here. JPG is royalty free. Free is good in the land of capitalistic corpos.
This is the issue with google / chrome driving the web... they decided to drop the support and it's virtually impossible to get any traction... and no, we almost don't have any competition in the space where all popular alternatives (opera, edge, brave) still use chromium underneath...
I do hope that more users would use Firefox (they are open to include it again) and that servo and ladybird will get more exposure...
Not a huge fan if animated stuff in the web tbh so not that affected
I’m confused now haha. So which format should we be using now going forward? I’ve been using HEIF/Max, would it make sense to switch to JPEG-XL?
I guess my main question is which file format offers the best compression quality to file size ratio and will be the “default” for the foreseeable future.
I guess my main question is which file format offers the best compression quality to file size ratio and will be the “default” for the foreseeable future.
Last edited:
What impact do you think JPEG-XL will have on professional photographers and videographers? Will it become the go-to format for high-quality images without sacrificing file size?
Time will tell. The aim is to replace JPEG, PNG and GIF. And there are 3 main contenders now WebP, AVIF and JPEG XL. They have all better quality to size ratio than JPEG, but AVIF and JPEG XL are better than WebP. But WebP are more supported now, as it is the oldest of the three.
This is a very welcome addition.
JPEG XL (uses a .jxl extension) is the future, this is a fact, at least for photos, there is no way around it long term, both for private and professional users.
I already converted all my jpegs to jxl files, just to reduce file sizes. If I don't like it, I can always convert is back and get exactly the same jpeg as before.
I shoot all my new photos in HEIF, because a JPG converted to jxl is still larger in size than directly capturing in HEIF (For uncompressed conversion, if you compress it you can easily get much smaller and not notice it). I just chose to go with the smaller file size here, the arguments the jpeg people make are all valid though.
Now the only thing left is for Apple to allow us to use it as the main format, without any drawbacks.
If the camera app would capture directly to jxl, file sizes should be much smaller than both JPG and HEIF.
The only problem there might be is live photos... but they can stay on HEIF/HEVC/HEIC.
As for AVIF, the only time it outshines JPEG XL is for very low quality photos and for animation (GIF), and the web has many of those. I don't know how low quality it has to be exactly for AVIF to be better though. I just hope that Google jumps off their high horse soon and implements JPEG XL into Chrome, some people want to serve high quality images on the web after all. Then everyone can choose what format suits their application best.
Meanwhile for the average user AVIF will never be of importance, it will stay a format for the web, and the web only.
JPEG XL (uses a .jxl extension) is the future, this is a fact, at least for photos, there is no way around it long term, both for private and professional users.
I already converted all my jpegs to jxl files, just to reduce file sizes. If I don't like it, I can always convert is back and get exactly the same jpeg as before.
I shoot all my new photos in HEIF, because a JPG converted to jxl is still larger in size than directly capturing in HEIF (For uncompressed conversion, if you compress it you can easily get much smaller and not notice it). I just chose to go with the smaller file size here, the arguments the jpeg people make are all valid though.
Now the only thing left is for Apple to allow us to use it as the main format, without any drawbacks.
If the camera app would capture directly to jxl, file sizes should be much smaller than both JPG and HEIF.
The only problem there might be is live photos... but they can stay on HEIF/HEVC/HEIC.
As for AVIF, the only time it outshines JPEG XL is for very low quality photos and for animation (GIF), and the web has many of those. I don't know how low quality it has to be exactly for AVIF to be better though. I just hope that Google jumps off their high horse soon and implements JPEG XL into Chrome, some people want to serve high quality images on the web after all. Then everyone can choose what format suits their application best.
Meanwhile for the average user AVIF will never be of importance, it will stay a format for the web, and the web only.