Comment buried. Show
1. RKDinOKC

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jul 2007

   0
   11/02, 03:56pm | report spam | close reply

   jpeg

   That's exactly what they said about the XP graphic format.

Comment buried. Show
1. paulc

   Junior Member

   Joined: Aug 2000

   0
   11/02, 04:18pm | report spam | close reply

   2000?

   Leaving aside the fact that m$ will ALWAYS have some advantage over other OS vendors in using this format, didn't we already have a successor to jpeg called jpeg 2000? Anyone ever seen one of those?

Comment buried. Show
1. Feathers

   Grizzled Veteran

   Joined: Oct 1999

   0
   11/02, 04:42pm | report spam | close reply

   microsoft plus open?

   The words "Microsoft" and "open" are about as synonymous as "Camel's hole in sandstorm" and "open"!

Comment buried. Show
1. scottnichol

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 1999

   0
   11/02, 04:47pm | report spam | close reply

   and the point is...

   quite frankly, i don't see the point to it. it's not like i'm going to discontinue my current workflow. i take raw files, bring them into photoshop, adjust, retouch, add layers and effects and they're saved as new versions in my aperture library.
   
   when i need to export to the web, i produce 800x600 pixel JPGs that are about 80-120 Kbytes. JPG is really just an intermediate format used for display on the web AFAIC.
   
   i can see some usefullness if a point-n-shoot records its captures in this format to allow a higher bit-depth image without using a proprietary RAW format, but most point-n-shoot photographers aren't doing any editing to their shots anyway! they get the white balance wrong, then don't know how to fix it anyway!
   
   so, this new format really seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Comment buried. Show
1. bsaxton

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2000

   0
   11/02, 05:45pm | report spam | close reply

   Jeez... give it a rest...

   I think its good. JPEG is, what, 20 years old now? Its time for an update. Hooray for Microsoft. The operating system may be ugly, but at least it can hold up pretty pictures.

Comment buried. Show
1. badbad

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2007

   0
   11/02, 06:21pm | report spam | close reply

   It is a GOOD thing...

   as long as it has a license similar to the JPEG license. Everyone can use it and new devices can be made with it in mind. The MSFT format supports a higher dynamic range and a more compact, elegant scaling format. People can hate or love MSFT but the image format has inherent superiority over the original JPG format.
   
   Again, as long as the license agreements are suitable, I would love Apple, Canon, etc to adopt it as soon as possible.

Comment buried. Show
1. bigmig

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2004

   0
   11/02, 06:22pm | report spam | close reply

   well

   As long as it's totally open and MSFT has no control over it (or at least no more control than any other member of JPEG), I have no problem with it. But as Paulc said, who is going to use it? We've had JPEG 2000 for years now and that's gone nowhere. I exported a few things to that format once, but I stopped as soon as I realized that there was no guarantee that every client app would support it. Portability is going to trump "a wider and subtler range of tones" 99 times out of 100.

Comment buried. Show
1. Deal

   Mac Enthusiast

   Joined: Apr 2001

   0
   11/02, 06:48pm | report spam | close reply

   So...

   1) it has to be better
   
   2) it has to work
   
   3) it has to be open
   
   4) it has to be widely adopted
   
   Microsoft has trouble with all of those items, but if they accomplished them, I'd use it.

Comment buried. Show
1. ender

   Junior Member

   Joined: Mar 1999

   0
   11/02, 08:08pm | report spam | close reply

   What about png?

   So where does the .png format stand in all this? Apple uses it for it's screen shot format. Is it a "standard" format? How does it compare quality-wise to the current JPEG and MS's next-gen JPEG format?

Comment buried. Show
1. Darwiniandude

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2007

   0
   11/04, 06:54am | report spam | close reply

   PNG is different

   PNG files are awesome. I love them :) But the files are bigger than JPEG. It's like a replacement for TIFF and a replacement for GIF rolled into one. PNG's have variable transparency, unlike GIF, and have very effective LOSSLESS compression. Both are reasons Apple use it i'd say. It's completely open AND royalty free. However, as it's lossless you can't get really bite-sized files like you can with JPEG, which does so by throwing information our the window.

Comment buried. Show
1. Darwiniandude

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2007

   0
   11/04, 06:58am | report spam | close reply

   i forgot

   the variable transparency of PNG makes it very easy to have a nice drop shadow as part of the image, that will work well over anything else.

Comment buried. Show
1. bhuot

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2003

   0
   11/04, 11:20am | report spam | close reply

   jpeg2000 patents?

   The reason JPEG 2000 hasn't caught on better is that developers are unsure if there are any patents on it. And for those who don't trust Wikipedia, the professional journal Nature compared Encyclopedia Brittanica to Wikipedia and found the same number of errors in both.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg_2000
   
   I would recommend DjVu as it is an open lossless bitmap format and there are open source viewers for the 3 major desktop platforms.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DjVu

Comment buried. Show
1. badbad

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2007

   0
   11/04, 09:58pm | report spam | close reply

   look up HD photo for info

   again, provided MSFT is fair with licensing, XR JPG has a higher color depth, advanced metadata inclusion and a more elegant compression scaling. It would be great for anyone who takes pictures or prints pictures - hardware and consumer.
   
   sizes are comparable to JPEG 2000 but with lower cpu usage. Again, all this with higher color depth(potential) and with reduced "jaggies"

Comment buried. Show
1. resuna

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2005

   0
   11/04, 10:49pm | report spam | close reply

   DjVu?

   bhuot: did you mean "lossy"?
   
   djvu appears to be specifically targeted to scanned text, and the compression is specifically designed to optimise that: each unique scanned letter is ideally represented by the same bitmap. It's a splendid design for that purpose, but not lossless.
   
   I think png is finally getting accepted as the lossless bitmap format of choice.