Comments on: Readers zoom in on Microsoft's JPEG rival
Almost half of voters in a CNET News.com poll express concern that the new photo compression format comes from Redmond.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Police to put drunk drivers' names on Twitter
December 26, 2009 2:17 PM PST
- Kindle is most gifted Amazon item, ever
December 26, 2009 11:19 AM PST
- Microsoft, Intel to cede tablet market to Apple?
December 26, 2009 10:04 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
This means that anything they do influences the market, which is why they must be kept on a leash to ensure that they do not get a total monopoly. The same thing goes for Apple and iTunes, almost.
At all costs, companies like Microsoft should be shunned by the public, Web development community, and the W3C.
Microsoft has proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted. Anyone who trusts them has is lacking foresight.
The Web is ours. Let's keep it that way.
Color Space. Finally someone is making life easier. Graphic artist, photographers, print techs and alike are constantly trying to get the colors right and jpg doesn't make it easy. You can't define a color space so you never know if the image was encoded with Adobe RGB or sRGB. MS new format allows the color space to be defined. And not just certain color space, any color space you can come up with along with a gamut cruve. This is a huge step in the right direction.
Also associated with the color space is embedding ICC profiles. Another big plus that will help with getting the colors right.
Color bit depth. jpg will only work with 8 bits, no more no less. The new format offers a plethora of options, 5,8,16,32 bit depths. This is important when you are shooting with a DSLR and it has 12 bits. As soon as you encode it to jpg you loose a ton of dynamic range and information. This forces you to shoot in the camera's proprietary RAW format. This allows the user to adjust the depth as needed. Many internet images will only need 5 bits and the file size will decrease significantly. On the other hand their is no lossy 16 or 32 compression formats. You have to go to PSD or TIFF which are lossless and bulky. Its about time a 16 bit lossy file format is offered.
Lossless vs lossy compression. To get a lossless compression you have to go to TIF. JPG doesn't offer a lossless compression. It will be nice to have a single format that offers both depending upon the users needs.
A minor plus but the new format will allow multiple images within the same image. You could set up a slide slow presentation that everyone could read. There are numerous applications with this, use your imagination.
I'm not worried about Microsoft putting restrictions on consumer usage or requiring users to pay to see their own images. What I am worried about is after it becomes the defacto standard MS will start charging royalties to manufacturers. Every device and software that uses the format might one day have to pay royalties. This fear will keep many manufacturers wary of adopting the new standard. It doesn't translate much of an increase to the consumer but it can mean millions for manufacturers who now have to pay a $1 royalty on every camera they make. I wish the jpg format would have evolved to address the issues MS did, but they haven't and they have had plenty of time to do it. So MS stepped in and took advantage of it. Hopefully everyone's mistrust of MS won't keep people from using it and hopefully MS won't take advantage of people's trust in the future.
Mark
supports only 8 bits. Every JPG file I know of can have an
embedded color space profile. JPEG-2000, the successor to JPEG,
supports lossless compression.
less lossless if you know what you are telling it what to do.
There is a reason we work in PSD, TIF or RAW at the end of the
day no matter how many times we have had to tweak the file the
color AND quality are preserved. Any compression format will
degrade an image over time if you keep opening changing and
saving the file. I shoot and work in 48 bit depth I don't see that
as an option. Unless you have an ICC profile device to profile
your system and the printer at the end of the line is profiled with
the paper you want to use that day it's not worth it to embed the
profile front to back.
I and the rest of the world would have a huge f***ing problem with that.
If their new format is better (than JPEG) and free (like JPEG) then by all means i dont care about it... but if M$ will screw around with restricting manufacturers and users then i wont touch it with a 10 ft pole
licensing baggage that comes with everything from Microsoft.
Now that the Forgent copyright claim on the jpeg format has
been declared invalid, jpeg is an even better choice than it was
last month. Any new format has to be free.
Any new format has to be cross platform. What commercial
website would use images that couldn't be seen by 15% - 20% of
their potential customers? What company wants to make
professional cameras that won't be purchased by a large portion
of professional photographers because it won't work with their
favorite computer. Any new format has to be usable on Macs
and Linux.
And, you have to admit a lot of people believe that some truths
are universal: Water is wet, the sky is blue, and it's best if you
don't trust Microsoft. So anything they develope will start with
one strike against it.
My prediction is their new format may be incorporated into a
component of Windows and/or Office but will never become
something used by others to any great extent.
That is IF it ever materializes at all. Didn't MS announce a PDF
killer a while back. Did that vapor ever condense into a real
product?
Mark
And no, MS said nothing about a PDF killer, which only shows your ignorance. In Vista, they are using something called Metro, which overlaps some of the things PDF does, but is not intended to replace PDF. Just replaces some of the things currently in Windows that need replacing.
But truth be told: do we need a new compressed/lossy imaging format for the Web? "Generally" speaking, no we don't. But from a web developers' point of view, we do need one thing addressed in JPEG -- lack-of transparency / alpha.
JPEG 2000 addresses this.
So really, what Microsoft needs to do is stop re-inventing the wheel (wasted time/effort, someone there at Microsoft created this file format to induce job security, if you ask me) and instead start *playing nicely* with industry standards that are open, public, documented, and well-defined.
It'll be a cold day in hell when Microsoft does that, but I'm speaking ideally.
It's the new office document format they're trying to compete against opendocument with.
in as you become comfortable with their file formats and have all
your documents in that format. Then they have you in too deep to
change.
The format was not readable until I downloaded the MS proprietery Office2007 document viewer.
Previously, office suites other than microsoft office have been limited to supporting the previous MS Office generation's .doc format but the latest and greatest is always saved for MS-Off only.
Just to add a few more comments... I am not a Microsoft hater nor a Microsoft lover. I am somewhere in between. But I gotta tell you, Microsoft needs to stop trying to "improve" things that either someone already does really well (iPod/iTunes) or something that doesn't need any improvements, just to try to "call it their own".
Hey Microsoft why don't you suprise us and come up with something truly revolutionary for a change?
I guess we should all be computing on an Eniac or an abacus or something?
If the bastards are still stuck with crappy JPEG (slightly defeating the purpose of me buying a higher MP/quality camera) then I will simply take images in RAW mode.
I will NOT lose precious data with JPEG once a superb alternative is supported in Vista, XP, IE7, and Photoshop. I will simply batch convert the images to that format (in two or three sizes) and delete the RAWs. After all, I'm not a pro photographer.
Will this keep me in MS-land forever? Nah... I'll still in the future be able to convert back to the lossless leader of that day, in case I get sick of MS's prices. My then-500 Terabyte harddrive ("DVD"?) will take those measly 20,000 home-made images and leave space for a few millions more... I probably won't be able to recompress them decently - but I don't think I'll care much (CPU/storage/bandwidth-wise)...
Right now there's a company preparing to sue everyone out there who's using jpeg--a company which claims to have had the majority of its jpeg patents upheld recently by a US Patents Office review. Microsoft is trying to get around these patents with its newer compression formats, formats which not coincidentally compress better but display as well as jpeg.
As long as sites like CNet are themselves ignorant as to how much commercial money goes into "open source" of all kinds, and how "open source" software has to pay the same licensing fees for patented software as the makers of commercial software have to pay, and how the creators of "open source" often make lots of money themselves--well, CNet readers for the most part will remain ignorant themselves.
The remedy for that is to read widely outside of CNet...;) It's difficult to understand how CNet could have missed the root of the jpeg story. I'd say that when it comes to Microsoft you guys have a prejudicial blind spot as wide as the Atlantic ocean.
I guess I'll read it for the headlines and then Google it for the real story.
I agree with most of your points, however, if you read recently the company that holds the JPEG patents actually just had almost 50% or more of them thrown out by the Patent board...
techniques for encoding and decoding the compression into the
public domain (permanently), then it is a welcome standard. MS
can still make their $$ selling prepackaged solutions to both
coders (supporting it so they don't have to write the codec
solutions from scratch), and from server support/browser
support, back-end databases optimized to store large quantities
of the images, etc...
BUT if they don't put the image standard and the methodology
for encoding it (or have the ability to retract the public domain
license on any aspect of the concept), then they will be in exactly
the same position the existing JPEG image compression standard
is (ability to require royalties).
That royalty position is an untennable position for a standards
organization (WW3) to embrace as the "Defacto" graphics
standard, especially when they got burned once already with the
JPG issue. The standards which the primary core of the
information on the net is based upon needs to be in public
domain to maximize the value of the information it stores. What
would happen if IBM corp or Hollerith's decendents could sue for
royalty on every system which utilizes ASCII text? Think about it.
The same concept applies here...
Cheers,
The Guys at CyberPoet.NET
That said a new format is needed, while there are a lot of current formats (jpeg, tiff, gif, png...) none of those formats has a superset of the features included in the other formats.
PNG is probably the best all around current format but it lacks the "multiple images" in one file capability which TIFF provides. TIFF is a fairly good format but doesn't offer compression. GIF is obsolete mainly due to a now expired patent and the demands made for royalties by the Unisys corporation. JPEG is the workhorse format for images currently but it's shortcomings are also well known and of course there's another pack of greedy fools extorting money from people because they think they've got a patent on some of the technology used in those images.
It looks like MS has covered the bases on what's technically needed for a new image format, the question is whether they'll leave it free enough that it can be adopted as a standard even by MS's competitors.
Talk about a lousy selection of answer options!
Microsoft needs to learn that their way of doing business has created major trust issues. As in most people don't trust them.
Robert
But, since this is a media format rather than an application developed to manipulate it, it should be released as an open standard. They can take credit for the creation but keeping it propriatery us just wrong.
There also aren't a lot of tools that support OpenDocument for the same reason - it's a new format.
It's been said before and it will be said again, nobody can trust Microsoft. They aren't in business for the good of any customer only the bottom line. The more the consumer gives into that the more power they have over how you choose to use your computer. I'm being blunt here, but I think that anybody who can't see or understand that is just fooling themselves.
Mirosoft is one of the most competitive and agressive companies in any market. Bill is out to win be damned sportsmanship or fairness. It's not apart of his agenda.
It's not about open source or Linux, it's about the right to choose how you use your technology. What good is it to have an image format that you are restricted on it's uses or platforms it can be used on. I'm not opposed to a new format to rival JPEG and I'm not opposed to it being developed by Microsoft. I am opposed to it being controlled or owned by Microsoft. If Microsoft would like my support they need to give it up to a standards body and make it completly unincumbered by any patents or copyrights. Otherwise it's just another Microsoft proprietary piece of software that, better or worse, locks you into doing what Microsoft want's you to do.
- This just wont work
- by joevallely June 2, 2006 4:28 PM PDT
- JPEG works fine for amateur photography - this format is target at the professionals who deal with increably large and detailed files. The trouble is that the vast majority of such professionals make extencive use of Mac's, and I really can't see Windows Media Photo featuring in Mac OSX.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(51 Comments)