Pros of libheif

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Broader platform support, including Windows and macOS
• Better documentation and examples for integration

Cons of libheif

• Slightly larger codebase, potentially more complex to understand
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

libheif:

#include <libheif/heif.h>

heif_context* ctx = heif_context_alloc();
heif_context_read_from_file(ctx, "image.heic", nullptr);
heif_image_handle* handle;
heif_context_get_primary_image_handle(ctx, &handle);

heif:

#include "Heif.h"

using namespace HEIF;

Heif* heif = Heif::create();
heif->load("image.heic");
auto primaryImage = heif->getPrimaryItem();

Both libraries provide C++ APIs for working with HEIF files, but libheif offers a more C-style interface, while heif uses a more object-oriented approach. libheif's API is generally considered more flexible and easier to integrate into existing projects.

Pros of libavif

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Better documentation and examples for integration
• Wider industry support and adoption due to AV1 backing

Cons of libavif

• Larger file size for encoded images compared to HEIF
• Potentially slower encoding/decoding times for complex images
• Less mature ecosystem, as AVIF is a newer format

Code Comparison

libavif:

avifResult result = avifEncoderWrite(encoder, image, &raw);
if (result != AVIF_RESULT_OK) {
    fprintf(stderr, "Failed to encode: %s\n", avifResultToString(result));
    return 1;
}

heif:

auto context = heif::Context();
context.encode_image(image, encoder, options);
context.write(writer);

Both libraries offer straightforward APIs for encoding images, but libavif's approach is more C-style, while heif uses C++ with a more object-oriented design. The heif library generally requires less boilerplate code for basic operations.

Pros of FLAC

• Lossless audio compression with excellent compression ratios
• Widely supported across many devices and platforms
• Open-source and royalty-free

Cons of FLAC

• Limited to audio compression only
• Larger file sizes compared to lossy formats like MP3

Code Comparison

FLAC (encoding example):

FLAC__StreamEncoder *encoder = FLAC__stream_encoder_new();
FLAC__stream_encoder_set_verify(encoder, true);
FLAC__stream_encoder_set_compression_level(encoder, 5);
FLAC__stream_encoder_init_file(encoder, output_filename, NULL, NULL);

HEIF (encoding example):

HeifContext context;
context.setOutputFile(output_filename);
context.setCompressionQuality(50);
context.addImage(input_image);
context.encode();

Summary

FLAC is a specialized lossless audio codec, while HEIF is a container format for images and image sequences. FLAC excels in audio compression and has widespread support, but is limited to audio. HEIF offers more versatility for image storage and compression but may have less universal support. The code examples show basic encoding setup for each format, highlighting their different focuses and APIs.

Pros of zlib

• Widely adopted and battle-tested compression library
• Smaller codebase, easier to integrate and maintain
• Supports a broader range of programming languages and platforms

Cons of zlib

• Limited to general-purpose compression, not optimized for specific file formats
• Lacks modern features like multi-threading or GPU acceleration

Code Comparison

zlib (compression example):

z_stream strm;
deflateInit(&strm, Z_DEFAULT_COMPRESSION);
deflate(&strm, Z_FINISH);
deflateEnd(&strm);

heif (writing an image):

heif::Context ctx;
heif::ImageHandle handle;
heif::Image image;
ctx.encode_image(image, heif::Encoder(heif::Encoder::encoder_type::hevc), nullptr);
ctx.write_to_file("output.heif");

Summary

zlib is a versatile, widely-used compression library suitable for various applications. heif, on the other hand, is specifically designed for the HEIF image format, offering more specialized features but with a narrower focus. zlib's simplicity and broad compatibility make it easier to integrate, while heif provides more advanced functionality for working with modern image formats.

Pros of libjpeg-turbo

• Widely adopted and supported across various platforms and applications
• Offers significant performance improvements over standard libjpeg
• Maintains full compatibility with existing JPEG standards

Cons of libjpeg-turbo

• Limited to JPEG format, lacking support for modern image formats like HEIF
• Does not provide advanced features like HDR or multi-image containers

Code Comparison

libjpeg-turbo:

#include <turbojpeg.h>

tjhandle tjInstance = tjInitCompress();
tjCompress2(tjInstance, sourceBuffer, width, pitch, height,
            TJPF_RGB, &jpegBuf, &jpegSize, TJSAMP_444, quality,
            TJFLAG_FASTDCT);

heif:

#include <libheif/heif.h>

struct heif_context* ctx = heif_context_alloc();
heif_context_encode_image(ctx, image, encoder, nullptr, nullptr);
heif_context_get_primary_image_handle(ctx, &handle);
heif_image_handle_get_data(handle, &data, &size);

The code snippets demonstrate basic image compression operations for each library. libjpeg-turbo focuses on JPEG compression, while heif provides encoding capabilities for the HEIF format.

Pros of libwebp

• More mature and widely adopted, with broader browser and platform support
• Smaller file sizes for lossless compression in many cases
• Faster encoding and decoding performance

Cons of libwebp

• Limited support for advanced features like HDR and wide color gamut
• Less flexibility in terms of metadata and image sequences

Code Comparison

heif example:

HeifContext* ctx = heif_context_alloc();
heif_context_read_from_file(ctx, "image.heic", nullptr);
heif_image_handle* handle;
heif_context_get_primary_image_handle(ctx, &handle);

libwebp example:

WebPDecoderConfig config;
WebPInitDecoderConfig(&config);
WebPDecode(data, data_size, &config);
uint8_t* output = config.output.u.RGBA.rgba;

Summary

While libwebp offers better compression and wider support, heif provides more advanced features and flexibility. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and target platforms.