Comments on: Better JPEG standard due in 2009

JPEG XR image format, created initially by Microsoft, passes a standardization milestone and should become a published standard this year.

[sdf0013]

The article isn't real clear, but I'm not sure it makes sense to stop at just 16-bit. It says "or more" so I guess it's scalable. I could see reasons to allow for more bit depth to allow better overlay and even better alpha channel support. I would have liked to have seen some comparisons to PNG vs JPGXR. Also, what's the new extension going to be? Will it be backwards compatible? I'd guess not, so you would want a different extension.

[Shankland]

The spec includes 32-bit and floating point, too. So plenty of scalability. It's not backwards compatible. The filename extension in Windows Vista for HD Photo is .hdp, but it's not yet clear to me if or how the JPEG XR standard is different; I suspect it'll get its own extension later.

[Random_Walk]

One question. Are there any patent hazards associated with implementing this new standard?

[Shankland]

No, as I understand it. It's an open standard. Microsoft was pretty liberal in the licensing. For example, they told me there would be no trouble if somebody wanted to build open-source software using the format. And as a practical matter, licensing barriers would have stood in the way of Microsoft's ambition to encourage adoption by innmerable software makers, operating system companies, camera manufacturers, photo kiosk manufacturers, printer makers, etc.

[shinelikeitdoes]

it probably wont work in microsoft browsers.

[inachu]

Any legal ramifications in using JPEG XR?
Something like this could happen:
Network soloutions was notified and turned off a few thousand websites because they are using JPEG XR without a licsense and that goes for all family photographs and non commercial product images.

This could be a bee nest about to swarm.

[Shankland]

Here's Microsoft's position on the matter, from an earlier story:

http://news.cnet.com/Vista-to-give-HD-Photo-format-more-exposure/2100-1045_3-6153730.html

"As you can tell from the license terms, this is not something where we said, 'Let's make billions of dollars off this,'" Weisberg said. The only licensing obligation is to maintain HD Photo image compatibility.

[Josh_Weisberg]

I'm not sure how they were using JPEG XR, since it's not officially released. Perhaps they were using a draft version. Regardless, there are always legal considerations when using any standard such as JPEG.

I think the point Stephen is re-iterating is that Microsoft has given the JPEG Committee a license to the technology being used in JPEG XR, and we're not putting restrictions on how it's implemented. The point of a standards effort such this one is to have a clear licensing policy that it managed by an ISO committee -- and not by Microsoft.

[darthstupid]

For those that want to know all the nitty gritty technical details of JPEG XR (formerly called "HD Photo" and "Windows Media Photo") go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo

[xim1970]

As a graphic designer, I would like to know how this would be rolled out...
Will it be on target with Adobe and Quark rolling out support for the XR format? Will it be backwards compatible with legacy software? Currently, if I get a 16-bit TIFF image, it only shows up on the black plate as an error message...what kind of new nightmare is M$ unleashing on us (of course, we designers HAAAAAATE M$ Publisher)? I admit that if this is supported by design programs at the same time this new format is released, I'm ok with it, but it sounds like more hype from M$...think about this:
1. JPEG was developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group...hence JPEG...I assume that the Joint Photographic Experts Group is an independent group working for the "ease of use by consumer". Who is M$ working for? MICROSOFT
2. "JPEG XR offers a few advantages over JPEG, according to Microsoft. For one thing, as the XR "extended range" abbreviation suggests, it offers greater dynamic range--the span between the brightest brights and darkest darks in a photo."
There is only one thing wrong with this statement...you can only get 0% ink or 100% ink on a page. You can currently get 100% of cyan, magenta, yellow and black (or, conversely 0 Red, Green and Blue) to produce an overly-saturated black out of the current JPEG format. The opposite is true of producing a pure white (essentially, no ink on the page at all).
3. While it may produce a greater range of hues and colors, average consumers will not see this difference unless they output to 6-color printers (the difference between 4-color and 6-color printers being that 6-color printers use Light Magenta and Light Cyan, and sometimes Light Black to add to the quality produced by the standard Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black combination. While a nice option to have, most will not see the increased resolution from your local printer. People will need to be educated about what kind of quality they will see out of their printer, especially if it isn't a 6-color printer.
This might be a great technology for bloggers posting their latest vacations, or for people who are really into video editing, I can foresee this as being a nightmare for those of us in the print world. HD printing is expensive, and I'm not sure that everyone who uses this new standard "included" in their new camera will understand why their photos look so dull in their final product. Rest assured, knowing there is a new tech coming down the 'pike, I'll warn my customers about the drawbacks!

[fooldog01]

Please refrain from using the dollar sign as the "S" in MS. Not only does it actually require extra effort to do so but it also removes all legitimacy from the remainder of your post.

[LuvThatCO2]

I agree fooldog1 - I usually stop reading posts when I see things like that because it tells me the poster is a 'true believer'. And frankly, OS choice isnt a religion, no matter how many people try to make it out to be.

[MadLyb]

Comment Fail.

Go actually research the spec and then return with someting that resembles knowledge and intelligence.

[viper396]

xim1970 all you saw was "Microsoft" and immediatly jumped to conclusions and took sides against them. This anti-Microsoft banter is just getting tired, juvenile, and irrelevent. Time to grow up and move on. Do some research and come back when you actually have an informed and rational opinion.

[pcfish]

If microsoft really care about photography and imaging, fix their IE so that it supports color profile at the very least. Just my opinion, XR is going no where.

[paul613]

What happened to JPEG 2000? That 16-bit format never caught on. In 2007, I had hoped to post my photos online in beautiful 16 bits. But I discovered that it's not supported by PicasaWeb or any browser (that I could find). You coudn't even view it in Windows XP without downloading third-party viewers, and unlike RAW viewers, none of the free JPEG viewers would integrate with Windows Explorer. I think there were licensing issues.

[jkeels]

I don't trust M$ with this. They have a history of using technology like this to strong arm the world into the microsoft way of doing things. Somehow I cannot imagine them allowing this to be used with Linux and other open source software. They have a trick up their sleeve again and are up to something. Microsoft always is. You all know that! uggh

[viper396]

Did you even read the article? The Joint Photographic Experts Group set the standard. Microsoft simply developed the format. "Standards" are what the open-source community is always whining about and always trying to get Microsoft to adopt. Now that Microsoft is actually contributing to an open standard all you can do is post completely cynical and useless rhetoric. If you want "standards" to be adopted then co-operating with the company behind 90% of all computers on the planet is the most logical way to do it.

Go back to sticking your head in the sand. Hypocrite.

[thomul]

viper396

We are already seeing MS sue companies for using "their" Linux Kernel, soon the pdf format and if their world domination project stays on track you will soon be paying them for using the new jpg format.

[pcfish]

1. For photographer, Jpeg XR is still going to be a lossy compression that no one use.
2. For regular folks, their monitor is not even capable of displaying sRGB space, they are not going to see any advantage that 16bit image offers. That's the whole reason we have to tone map HDR back to 8 bits!

My conclusion, XR is just another vaporware.

[eflaten]

Is it possible to download the sourcecode further refine the code into other purpose? if the code cant be built into other image software e.g Imagemagic and such. it is of no use.

Generally I am very skeptical to all stuff from MS. They dont even has good enough webbrowser and has a very bad history in working against open document standards. A image format must be as open as possible.

[likexx]

for people concerning about "Evil MSFT"...

Regardless you hate MSFT or not, computer technologies are improved by these large corporations, such as Intel/IBM/MSFT/etc....And only these large corporations have the power to make a technology innovation into practice. JPEG2000 have been there for almost 10 years, why it never comes to us? Because the academic researcher can only make a "demo" or "prototype". It's easy to make a "concept-prove", but you do need a company like MSFT to push it into market if you really want peple to have a better life.