![]() ![]() I thought I'd add a quick mention of the SVG format as well. As of 2022, there are still no web browsers that support it (not even Apple’s Safari browser!), making it of no practical use on websites. AVIF is based on HEIF.Īpple adopted the format in 2017 for images saved to the iPhone and iCloud space, calling it the HEIC format, and making it much more widely used across their entire ecosystem. The newer format saves images with a significantly smaller file size than JPGs while promising better image quality too (16-bit color). The HEIF format ( High Efficiency Image File Format) was introduced in 2015 as a new format for images and “image sequences” like a burst of photos or “live” photos. This is rapidly improving, however, and should be less of an issue in the near future. Similar to WebP, these can take longer to render than JPGs, negating some of the gains of smaller file sizes. Currently it is only supported by Chrome and Firefox.Īnother drawback may be the time to generate AVIF images dynamically in a CMS or other program. But given its newness and the lack of a giant corporation like Google behind it, support for AVIF across browsers isn’t as wide as it is for WebP. And unlike WebP, AVIF supports 12 bit color, which allows for high dynamic range and wide color gamut images.īeing open-source, AVIF can be used by other services without licensing fees. It also supports alpha transparency, animation and image metadata.ĪVIF somehow improves on the compression and image quality levels of WebP, however, offering even greater reductions in filesize– 50% smaller than comparable JPGs. Similar to WebP, AVIF offers superior image compression (with increased image quality) over standard JPG images. It is the newest of image formats we’re discussing here today, but one of the most promising. ![]() AVIFĪVIF was first released in 2019, as an open-source image format based on the AV1 video format. Probably the only reason to consider anything else at this point is the promise of our next format, AVIF. And for sites where images are generated automatically (such as a CMS), they may need more time to process the images versus a JPG (thus negating some of the performance benefits), or currently lack the ability to save images in WebP format.īut it is still a very exciting newer format that can be used on most production sites today. It doesn’t support progressive downloads, like JPGs. WebP only supports 8-bit color, meaning it can’t support HDR (high dynamic range) and wide color-gamut images. And it also supports EXIF metadata on images. It supports alpha transparency and animation as well, advantages previously held only by GIF and PNG files. WebP is supported by the latest versions of all major browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox and Microsoft Edge), making it one of the most viable options for a new and improved image format. And Google encourages all web developers to switch to using WebP for improved site performance. Given the scale of image libraries maintained by Google, having 25% or greater reductions in filesize has had great benefits to the company in terms of file storage and energy required to serve images to the public (better site performance). The primary benefit to this new format is a much higher rate compression at similar (or improved) quality to JPGs– 25% to 50% smaller file size! Google acquired this new image format called WebP back in 2010, and has worked on improving it ever since. But there is no support for animation or transparency, however, and JPG doesn’t do as well when rendering images with type. And JPG images can contain metadata about images (EXIF). JPG images can be saved and served progressively, meaning users get a lower-quality preview of the image even as it is still fully rendering. Of course with larger sites and huge libraries of images, the value of good image compression increases exponentially. ![]() The smaller the size, the faster the page load, and more people will engage with your online content. And amazingly, even though we’ve gone from dial up modems to fiber optic networks, size still matters. While not ideal for print (though that’s changed over time), JPG quickly became the ideal choice for people wanting to share images over the Internet, where size and bandwidth mattered. Similar to copying a cassette from an existing tape (if you’re old enough to remember that). There were (and are) drawbacks to its compression format, most notably in that image quality does suffer when highly compressed, and each time a JPG is opened and edited (re-saved), the quality goes down. This format allowed everyone to save large, high quality images at a fraction of the sizes offered by other formats such as TIF or EPS. The " Joint Photographic Experts Group" format (.jpg or. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |