Feature request support AVIF images

DxO PhotoLab Feature requests
21

Can you understand what I (a human) have written in my previous post:

That’s utterly nonsense! I have a Web Design company for more then 15 years! I know what images are replacing the webp with JPG fallback images and it is “AVIF” extension.

And AI explained perfectly why. I could all do it my self but this saved me at least 15 min. and I only have to copy paste. The times that not accurate messages are appearing is all most over! And I always check it of course!

So I don’t rely for my knowledge on AI, but let it do the stupid work for me!

And I still did not see any argument or error against the 2 AI posts!

1 Like
22

Understand maybe. Believe - that’s a whole other world.

How do you know when a liar is lying?

I realise that I can no longer rely on anything you say because I don’t even know if you are an AI bot yourself.

23

Yes and you who is on this forum all day and every day making peoples lives a misery with constant debates about what ever item is posted is the only real human? With the only good answers.

You people should be a shame of your self! You terrorise this forum a make people never return after a couple of posts, it’s just sickening. Do you have nothing else to do in live?

1 Like
24

You’re getting a little riled up, aren’t you?

“shame” “terrorise” “sickening”

Huh? Dial it down a bit, would you please?

1 Like
25

Hmm - let’s see…

Capture d’écran 2025-08-07 à 16.55.31
Capture d’écran 2025-08-07 à 16.55.312196×874 72.9 KB

You - member for 2 years - 48 days visited - 39 likes

Capture d’écran 2025-08-07 à 16.54.59
Capture d’écran 2025-08-07 à 16.54.592030×612 71.1 KB

Me - member for 7 years - 2,600 days visited - 5,100+ likes

To say nothing of several other prolific posters and help givers, like…

@mwsilvers also member for 7 years, with 2,600+ days visited and 4,900+ likes

@platypus who has been a member for more than 15 years - 2,900 days visited and 4,400 likes

… and many others.

All I can say is we must be doing something right.

2 Likes
26

This will become a fundamental problem in the near future: AI-based information published in our forum. In this case, David acted correctly—he clearly indicated that this information was AI-based. Therefore, I do not consider it productive to question this principle. On the other hand, every user of the forum must ask themselves whether this information is sufficiently reliable to be accepted as fact. I would also consider it sensible not to talk about AI, but to clearly identify the system. These systems are becoming increasingly diversified.

1 Like
27

I think the two AI summaries are reasonable, but they appear a bit dated to me and underestimate or ignore some important recent developments. Both Apple and Microsoft, for example, have begun embracing JPEG XL. The iPhone 16 Pro uses JPEG XL compression for ProRaw files. My guess is Apple will eventually drop HEIC/HEIF for JPEG XL.

1 Like
28

Hello, everyone! I could not reply for another 24 hours because I am a new user, and I just wanted to apologize and say that I did not mean to start a controversy.

The JPEG XL that someone mentioned sounds good from its website, almost too good to be true! I appreciate that update!

I have tried out both AVIF and JPEG XL on a test photo at their default settings.

Unfortunately, only JPEG and PNG files appear to be able to be uploading here, so I can’t post the results.

I’ll try to put a link to them (if allowed) and summarize:

All at the default settings, no changes made, just a simple convert command using “magick” from brew.sh on my Mac.

JPEG XL compressed size 2.0 MB, quality appears excellent
s@ecuredownload.us/day/JAM02024P01.jxl

AVIF compressed size 437 KB, quality appears excellent (honestly cannot tell a difference)
s@ecuredownload.us/day/JAM02024P01.avif

Original photo in PNG lossless format at 18.7 MB:

s@ecuredownload.us/day/JAM02024P01.png

Visual quality of both JPEG XL and AVIF seems to be visually the same as the PNG at their default settings.

File size of JPEG XL seems to be over four times larger/worse than AVIF at their default settings.

I did investigate if it was possible to change the JPEG XL settings from the default to get the file size down to match the AVIF, and I had to lower the quality parameter all the way down to 25% to get a 436 KB JPEG XL file (as close as possible to the 437 KB AVIF file).

The link to the 25% 436 KB JPEG XL file is here:

s@ecuredownload.us/day/JAM02024P01-q25.jxl

However, in this JPEG XL file that matches the size of the AVIF file, the quality is no longer excellent, but much lower.

My initial conclusion is that JPEG XL is developing but not yet ready or even close to matching the efficiency or the quality of AVIF, at least not at the same file size.

I hope this helps, with a real-world photo comparison.

Please don’t share the photo anywhere outside this forum. You do not have my permission.

Update: I noticed that the forum automatically loaded the AVIF file even though I used a plain text URL, but that the forum doesn’t support auto loading JPEG XL content yet from a plain text URL.

Update 2: removed images from public view as per recommendation of user stuck. You can still see them if you wish by removing the @ sign between the first two letters of the URL. If you don’t have time for this, the result was that AVIF at default settings vs. JPEG XL at default settings was same visual quality, but AVIF output was 4x smaller size than the JPEG XL output. So the advantage there goes to AVIF. When I left AVIF on default settings but changed the settings to get the file size down to the same size with JPEG XL, the quality of JPEG XL had to be lowered all the way to 25% and looked about 10 times worse visually.

So in summary:

Visual advantage at same file size is 10x in favor of AVIF.

File size advantage at same visual quality is 4x in favor of AVIF.

Winner is AVIF. Which is confusing because the JPEG XL website claims that it is the best of all image formats.

I would appreciate if someone else could help confirm with their own images.

29

My main desire for AVIF support is not the file size benefit primarily, but the ability to export my hard work at a higher level of quality to the final master images that will be kept forever, like 10-bit or 12-bit color depth.

JPEG only allows 8-bit color depth, and I feel sad saving my final work in a format that cuts out so much color and dynamic range from the original real-world capture.

TIFF and DNG are the only other options for export offered by DxO.

Both of them support higher color depth than JPEG.

However, DNG is not a final image but another kind of RAW format, and TIFF files are massive and completely impractical to use and store long-term to export and keep my photography work preserved for future generations.

That’s why I beg for DxO to please support AVIF, or at least something that’s industry standard, other than TIFF or DNG, to export the hard work on our photography.

I looked up the most popular image formats with current technology, and AVIF had the widest use and support–that’s my only reason for suggesting it.

I honestly don’t care if it’s AVIF or JPEG XL, or whatever the industry standard is.

It just breaks my heart to be stuck with 8-bit JPEG as the only available practical export option for long-term image preservation with all my investment into the best lenses and cameras and endless prep and work before, during, and after each shoot.

30

I doubt anyone here would share the photo but this is an open / public forum so images are visible without being logged in. Given that, you should probably remove your photo asap.

1 Like
31

Thank you very much! I was under the mistaken impression that one had to be logged in and a member to see, due to the “trust system” that prevented me from even being able to reply to my own thread more than twice in two days.

I removed the images by inserting an “@” sign after the first letter of the URLs.

They can be manually viewed by copying them, removing that sign, then pasting into a browser. But they now can’t be loaded by the forum or hopefully by search engines.

32

Unfortunately, all that does is delay anyone seeing the image for about 5 seconds.

33

@drmyers , images are protected by the right of the author per national and international regulations, agreements and whatnot. You might know that, but others might not and third parties will exploit everything they can get, e.g. to train their AI systems, be it with or without the author’s consent. Try to sue Meta or whoever presented Tolstoi sized conditions for use that we didn’t read and clicked “agree” to get rid of the crap.

Not sure if there was something in the conditions that we accepted when registering for the forum. How DxO is training their AI is something else to consider.

34

Personally, I take the view that if I upload something then, regardless of what copyright law says, I instantly lose control of whatever it was I uploaded.

Consequently, I only share stuff that I don’t care if was to be ripped off.

35

Thank you for all your help everyone!

Just in case the important results are overlooked with all the pages of scrolling here, it seems so far that AVIF does have a big advantage, although this is my first time trying to compare them.

So please, please someone else verify on your own. JPEG XL’s own website proudly claims it is better than everything by far, so I was expecting to be be better than 4-10 times worse than AVIF. But that is what I am getting in my testing. Unless I am doing something totally wrong.

8493 magick /Users/j/Desktop/giga/JAM02024P01.png /Users/j/Desktop/giga/JAM02024P01.jxl
8494 magick /Users/j/Desktop/giga/JAM02024P01.png /Users/j/Desktop/giga/JAM02024P01.avif

That’s the code I used to do the comparison at default settings. And then I added the “-quality” flag to different levels until the JXL file matched the size of the default AVIF file, to compare quality for the same file size.

36

But once again, I don’t care anything about AVIF or any other battle between formats. I only knew AVIF existed 3-4 days ago.

My only concern is that I continually am forced to export my hard work in photography into a format that is about 35 years old, and doesn’t even support a fraction of the color depth, dynamic range, and overall quality that my photos actually have.

There needs to be some other export option besides just TIFF and DNG, which are way overkill, and 8-bit JPEG which is the total opposite end of the spectrum.

I don’t care specifically if it is AVIF, but that’s just what I found as the only top option which also had overwhelming support on devices today after looking at a bunch of the best, most credible sources that I could find, such as the one I linked in my original post. That source has compared a bunch of file formats, and even updated their data and graphs with new information as time goes by.

37

Thank you for your recommendation of JPEG XL. I took the time to test it out carefully as posted above.

I would love anything that’s a top quality, top-tier, almost universally supported export format that offers far better color depth and much better quality at all file sizes than 35-year-old 8-bit JPEG.

From my reading, but especially from my personal testing posted above, it appears that AVIF checks all those boxes with about a 400% to 1000% advantage over JPEG XL.

I am not a fan or supporter of anything, and if my results are wrong, please provide a lossless reference photo and then some tests of your own in both JPEG XL and AVIF.

Update: "jpeg xl" | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc There is 13.5% support for JPEG XL currently worldwide.

"heic" | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc Also 13.5% support for HEIC.

"avif" | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc 93.79% support for AVIF.

I also noticed that this forum loaded the AVIF links and images automatically even when I didn’t want it to, but it did not support and did not load the JPEG XL images.

Also, I am confused why HEIC support has 246 votes for it, when it is only supported by 13.5% of the world, but AVIF support has only 3 votes for it when it is supported by 93.79% of the world. Now four votes, thank you so much!

38

@drmyers - you seem to have settled on AVIF for your purposes. It is a good format particularly for lower quality and smaller images that are to-ing and fro-ing from the web. For photography, my two cents are still with JPEG XL as it has been designed and extensively tested for larger, higher quality images. The medical imaging community is another group which is currently keen on JPEG XL. Still, for me, way too early to be locked down on either of these formats.

39

@eriepa You may have gotten the formats backwards. It is actually AVIF that is specifically engineered for the highest quality and largest images (like the best quality photography). The only time other formats begin to compare is at the very lowest quality settings.

The graphs in the original article I mentioned, as well as every other study, show this, with AVIF having a massive advantage for high quality photos (including resolutions up to more than 60000x60000 pixels), then converging to a similar performance level on low quality “web” images like you are mentioning.

But I don’t trust the AI stuff or the biased reports of their products themselves.

I personally tested it out and found that AVIF is 10x higher quality at the same file sizes, and 4x smaller file sizes at the same quality, compared to JPEG XL.

JPEG XL’s own website is the only source I have seen that claims it is the best in the world, a little biased.

40

Your starting with a PNG file original in a test of still photographic image quality seems a bit odd unless your focus is the web. Have you ever tested a standard editor output of a RAW file, say a full-size TIFF or at least a 100% JPEG? Just curious.

Added 8/9/25: note that Lr now supports exporting in both AVIF and JPEG XL formats. There, one can begin with RAW files and make direct comparisons using larger, higher-quality output. If the goal is to find the best tradeoff for highest-quality lossless (or visually lossless) images vs acceptable file size, this should be more informative. In my view comparing smaller, lower-quality, pre-processed images addresses only questions related to web use.