←back to thread

669 points danso | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
IvanK_net ◴[] No.23262092[source]
I am 100% on the side of the school. Unlike with JPEG, everybody who wants to work with HEIC should pay licence fees. Also, HEIC is like 50x more complex than JPEG.

I hope the world will never get to a point, where each phone brand stores photos in their own format, and you need a special software from the phone manufacturer to view the photos (that is what we have now with raw photography formats, and what we used to have in the past with phone chargers).

replies(5): >>23262473 #>>23262658 #>>23262715 #>>23262892 #>>23263507 #
whalesalad ◴[] No.23262473[source]
Okay so JPEG for the rest of eternity then?
replies(3): >>23263799 #>>23263936 #>>23263944 #
IvanK_net ◴[] No.23263944[source]
Of course not. But if we are talking about replacing JPG, two things are necessary: a new format should not be restricted by patents and licence fees, and such movement has to be coordinated with all other "players" in the industry. Apple did not do any of it.
replies(1): >>23264851 #
gbear605 ◴[] No.23264851[source]
But that isn’t true about HEIC. There isn’t a license fee.
replies(1): >>23265460 #
pornel ◴[] No.23265460[source]
HEIC is based on H.265, so there is a whole separate organization dedicated licensing and litigating its patents.
replies(1): >>23265587 #
gbear605 ◴[] No.23265587[source]
No? It’s an ISO standard that’s separate from H.265. Maybe you’re thinking of HEVC, which is like that. (Alternatively I’m wrong, which is totally possible)
replies(1): >>23266133 #
nshepperd ◴[] No.23266133{3}[source]
HEIC is defined as HEVC in a HEIF container. So yes, it's patent encumbered.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_For...

replies(1): >>23267136 #
1. gbear605 ◴[] No.23267136{4}[source]
I learned something today, thanks :)