JPEG XL was finalized 6-7 years after HEIF so I am not sure it is a good comparison. Especially seeing that JPEG XL was first finalized this and last year.
I know, I’m just saying that HEIF is the next-gen incumbent to beat. A lot of comparisons are being done with WebP and AVIF and legacy JPEG, which aren’t the real competition.
Yeah the comparisons that are made here are more for the Web market which HEIF have not entered at all which is why I guess it is not being included.
Adobe have added JPEG XL for Camera raw so maybe there is a chance for JPEG XL to catch up in that area, but it is hard to say. And I agree that it could be interesting to see comparisons.
HEIF is an abstract concept like 'binary'. Saying that image is stored in binary doesn't tell much, the same for HEIF. JPEG XL can be stored in a HEIF container.
It wouldn't help with technical compatibility, and a container format containing everything under the sun is going to bring a lot of long-term support burden and attack surface with it. Also, it is going to bring chaos since no one supports the whole format but just some fraction of it.
Camera manufacturers are old spineless companies. In all those years they have done nothing for digital image formats and it is the most important thing in a camera. They weren't even able to come up or attempt to make a standard RAW format. All that came from Adobe (DNG), which the camera manufacturers happily ignored for their own proprietary solution until this day.
Well RED is mostly suing for their RAW video compression patents, which are just dumb an should never be allowed to be passed in the first place (and AFAIK Nikon is currently battling to invalidate that). But this is also their own problem - they haven't put almost no R&D into the software side of digital photography and videography like formats, processing. They have a nice camera which outputs 12-bit and higher images - they should be the first ones requesting and defining a new image format for consumption, which can handle that.
