AVIF support is missing for yet another year.

[Artahir]

I bought Affinity and I like this method of editing. But I am forced to use Darktable for the option to use .avif in 10 and even 12-bit export.
12 is useless but today with every mid-range phone having OLED screen 10-bit is a good way to show your photography.
I've seen post from last year, and here I am. Another user, yet another year, begging for .avif to be added. Even .

JPEG and PNG should be dead by now. Only reason we keep those is because it's established.

[Snapseed]

I understand your request and I hope that it can be met. That said, I would very much like to see an end of the proliferation of yet more image file types.

 

[Artahir]

18 minutes ago, Snapseed said:

That said, I would very much like to see an end of the proliferation of yet more image file types.

That would make two of us.
both .webp and .webm are old as Jerusalem and still not implemented everywhere. Jpeg XL is unusable for viewing afaik. And AV1 has been implemented by Youtube and Netflix as standard codec for video so let's hope the .avif being open source and coming from the same branch will be the new .jpg and .png combined.
 

That said even .png is missing options in export menu in Affinity.

[fde101]

21 minutes ago, Snapseed said:

I would very much like to see an end of the proliferation of yet more image file types.

Yep.  Let's just go back to XPM and be done with it.

 

On 1/26/2025 at 1:24 PM, Artahir said:

JPEG and PNG should be dead by now.

PNG is quite different from the other formats you are listing, in that it is mathematically lossless, like TIFF, but with better compression for general images.  Consequently the newer lossy formats are worthless as substitutions for PNG.

While AVIF does evidently offer a "lossless" encoding mode, using a format such as PNG, which lacks a lossy mode, clarifies that images in that format can be trusted to be lossless.  If given a bunch of AVIF files you can't be sure without actually checking them.

The compression offered by PNG is easily good enough for many purposes.  We still use TIFF in my day job.

[Snapseed]

5 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Yep.  Let's just go back to XPM and be done with it.

 

PNG is quite different from the other formats you are listing, in that it is mathematically lossless, like TIFF, but with better compression for general images.  Consequently the newer lossy formats are worthless as substitutions for PNG.

While AVIF does evidently offer a "lossless" encoding mode, using a format such as PNG, which lacks a lossy mode, clarifies that images in that format can be trusted to be lossless.  If given a bunch of AVIF files you can't be sure without actually checking them.

The compression offered by PNG is easily good enough for many purposes.  We still use TIFF in my day job.

...which is precisely why yet more pointless "me too" graphics formats ought to be avoided if practically possible.

[fde101]

6 minutes ago, Snapseed said:

yet more pointless "me too" graphics formats

There are practical reasons for some of the newer formats, and AVIF is admittedly one of the least problematic due to its goal of remaining patent-free.

Internet bandwidth costs money when running a server.  So does storage.  These newer formats which reduce the size of the files are mainly for internet distribution, where bandwidth matters.  The smaller the file is, the less bandwidth it consumes, the cheaper it becomes to operate a site.

That said, I think it would be better if the deployment solutions being used for the sites would take some more substantial format (such as PNG) and produce whatever variants are wanted when the site is being staged for deployment, rather than relying on artists to provide a bunch of different distribution formats to account for different browsers being happy with different such formats.

[Ldina]

There are additional reasons for some of the new file formats...AVIF, JPEG-XL, HEIC, etc. HDR will eventually become mainstream and is picking up steam already. Many of these new file formats will encode HDR as well as SDR, all in the same file, using various strategies, such as gain maps, or even multiple versions of the same image in one "container" file. Some support video, some are still image only. You can't do some of these things with many of the existing file formats, most of which are a single images limited to SDR range. And as @fde101 mentioned, bandwidth is important for saving storage and fast loading on websites. Some of these new algorithms have superior compression with higher quality (both lossy and lossless encoding). 

It will take time to see which of these file formats become mainstream and are well supported by browsers, email, graphics apps, etc. Some formats will fizzle out, some will gain strength and survive. All the big players are duking it out, betting on their favorite horses. We really do need new file formats, but I also hope we don't have too many redundant file formats, especially if they don't offer anything special over others that will do the same job. 

[PROdult]

Netflix apparently uses AVIF for streaming now, but has AVIF actually become popular for photos, web, and illustrations? I don’t come across it often.

[Ldina]

3 hours ago, PROdult said:

Netflix apparently uses AVIF for streaming now, but has AVIF actually become popular for photos, web, and illustrations? I don’t come across it often.

It's early days for HDR, at least for the general public. Photoshop has added AVIF, with the ability to create, embed 'gain maps', and save AVIF, which will allow users to display either SDR images on their 'standard' displays, or HDR for users that have HDR monitors, all from the same file. The gain maps will be able to scale brightness values depending on the end user's available HDR monitor 'headroom' on the fly. I believe a few browsers (Chrome, in particular) now support AVIF and gain maps. (Safari doesn't support AVIF HDR, last time I checked, but I think it will, especially since Apple uses gain maps in their files created with iPhone cameras). HDR and AVIF are not all that common....yet, mainly because HDR hasn't really taken off. But, HDR is going to become commonplace in the not too distant future, and when it does, file formats that support HDR, are supported by widely used internet browsers,(and survive the competition) will become common too. The fact that Adobe has added AVIF is a big boost for AVIF, which is why I think it will survive. JPEG-XL is another great format, but is facing some headwinds. As people see the dazzling images that HDR can display, they will gradually upgrade their computers and monitors, but that takes time, so it's early days yet. Video is far ahead of still photography at this point, due to the wide availability of HDR TVs. Here's a link that talks a little about HDR, AVIF, gain maps, etc. 

https://gregbenzphotography.com/photography-tips/exporting-avif-files-from-photoshop/