January 26, 2007 7:45 AM PST

Vista to give HD Photo format more exposure

(continued from previous page)

"We know we don't live in a world where things don't travel outside our ecosystem. We wanted to make sure anybody who wants to consume or create HD Photo has the ability to do that without any real encumbrance," Weisberg said.

Microsoft has won some support outside the software realm, too. "There are several manufacturers that have begun shipping or who are close to shipping HD Photo-enabled silicon (chips), but that will take time," Weisberg said, a step that's necessary for built-in camera support.

But the format is still a Microsoft standard, not an industry standard governed by a neutral consortium to represent others' interests. That can be a problem--for example, Apple has said it would like Adobe's DNG better if it were an industry standard.

Weisberg, though loquacious on many HD Photo subjects, is conspicuously quiet on the matter of standardization, saying only, "It's something we're always looking at."

HD Photo sales pitch
How exactly is HD Photo better than JPEG? Malvar and Weisberg have a multitude of arguments:

• For each pixel, HD Photo stores at least 16 bits of data for each color, compared with 8 bits with JPEG. That means subtle tonal variations in shadowy or bright areas can be preserved, even through the editing and printing process. And for the cutting-edge crowd, it can store 32 bits per color, useful for combining multiple photos into a "high dynamic range" image that spans the darkest darks to the brightest brights.

• HD Photo's compression algorithm produces images that have twice the quality as JPEG at the same file size or the same quality at half the file size. The algorithm uses simple instructions that can be relatively easily built into cameras' image-processing chips.

• HD Photo builds in smaller "thumbnail" images for quick viewing of files at small sizes. In contrast, a computer operating system must generate JPEG thumbnails.

• The encoding algorithm, set to its highest standard, is "lossless," meaning that it preserves all the image data with no loss of quality. JPEG is "lossy." And although JPEG 2000 has a lossless feature, it requires a separate algorithm and therefore, in the case of camera chips, more circuitry.

• HD Photo uses Microsoft's scRGB color space, which spans a much wider gamut of possible colors than the universally supported but widely derided sRGB scheme. "HD Photo adds support for a higher range of colors, which is becoming more important," Connor said.

And although cameras and computers typically describe colors in RGB terms--varying amounts of red, green and blue--HD Photo also can use CMYK that uses cyan, magenta, yellow and black. That's useful for sending images to printers, which often use CMYK inks.

• The algorithm can decode only a selected portion of the HD Photo image that needs to be displayed, rather than the entire image, which reduces memory requirements and speeds up performance. It can also be encoded chunk by chunk without having to store the entire image in memory.

• HD Photos can be easily rotated in 90-degree increments. JPEG images must be decoded and re-encoded, degrading quality slightly with each change.

•  HD Photo images can be gargantuan--262 million pixels on an edge, or 68.6 terapixels total, as long as the compressed image doesn't exceed 32GB in size.

Microsoft knows it will need a strong pitch to spread HD Photo beyond Windows and into the entire digital photo world.

"The camera manufacturers will think, 'If I produce an image, will the neighborhood drugstore print it? Otherwise I'll keep JPEG,'" Malvar said. "We would like such a transition to happen, but we are realistic that it may take some time until the whole ecosystem is in place."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
JPEG, digital photography, director of product management, digital imaging, Adobe Systems Inc.

79 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Great benefits
I'm a serious amateur photographer and I really hope MS HD format catches on. Any serious photographer shooting with a DSLR knows the problems with jpeg which forces most of us to shoot in RAW. A RAW file is just the data straight off the sensor without any processing. Everytime a new camera comes out with a new sensor the format changes. RAW is a pain to work with be we all do it because jpg is just horrible. HD offers some really neat improvements besides file size. To me the file size is the least important improvement. HD has the ability to save in 16bit or 32bit and uses a wider color space. What this means to everyday users is that when your camera over exposes or underexposes your image you can fix it on the computer. With jpg you are limited to very little exposure adjustments. The colors will be smoother and details in shadows and highlights will not be lost.

The fact that HD come from microsoft is the best and worst thing about it. With MS fully behind it, it actually might have a chance to take over jpg. But with MS behind all the manufacturers of devices and software programmers will be extremely skeptical because if HD takes over, microsoft may suddenly start charging huge royalties. They attempted that a few years back with FAT16 and caused a huge uproar.

Mark
Posted by Striker77s (55 comments )
Reply Link Flag
ab't RAW format...
*shrug*.

No, seriously.

My last DSLR body (Minolta Maxxum) came with the format conversion templates and even a standalone converter that allows me to chuck it off as-is into any format that my Mac will happily chew on. I don't use .jpg if I'm going to do anything with it.

As for labs, see if they accept .tif/f (many do) - no compression worries that way.

As for space? Yep - but even in RAW, I can pack 150+ shots onto my 1GB CF card, no sweat... and a 1GB card costs a whole lot less than 10 rolls of decent Fuji 35mm slide film, which is what I used to drag along with me on many a long outing... (not even counting developing costs, either).

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
The end...
...doesn't justify the means. We do need a new standard, but why does it have to come from Microsoft? Can't the open source community come up with a format that doesn't require royalties to be paid to a company just to use it?

Remember when no one wanted to add GIF support to their editors/viewers cause they would have to pay royalties?
Posted by thedreaming (573 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No royalties
There doesn't seem to be any intent on the part of MSFT to extract
royalties for this. While it wasn't created in an open source manner
they've essentially released the algorithm to the commuity.
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
Yes I remember
And thus the superior PNG format was born which also provided JPG type capabilities but for some reason JPGs still reign supreme. GIFs aren't nearly as important as they once were but they still exist in large quantities and still outnumber PNG files.

MS however has pledged not to charge royalties which is effectively a verbal contract and could be enforced legally.
Posted by extinctone (214 comments )
Link Flag
Royalties?
Where did you get that? Do software vendors have to pay royalties to MS for the ability to read/write Office documents?
Posted by frankwick (413 comments )
Link Flag
The risks heavily outweigh the benefits.
Does anyone have any fantasy that MS will do anything other than extract money from our pocket to use this format if they should prevail? You know all too well MS will constantly make changes to prevent alternative products and operating systems from using this format. Changes not only technically, but also legally to keep open source people out of it entirely.
Posted by Microsoft_Facts (109 comments )
Reply Link Flag
except
That the 'promise' to not enforce their patents should allow this
happen. The promise has some force of law behind it. A compnay
building a product off this patent will likely be protected even if MS
changes its mind because the development took place in good faith
with out intent to infringe. Thats my guess at least.
Posted by rapier1 (2722 comments )
Link Flag
MS isn't that bad
Did you not read the article. Microsoft isn't trying to keep other software and OS from using it, they are begging everyone to use it. They are even jointly developing a plug-in for Photoshop with Adobe for free. They have released it essentially as an open format and any can use it with no fees. I agree that it would be nice if it came from open source but that just isn't going to happen. jpeg 2000, png and dng are all great examples. They are superior algorithms that have failed to attain wide acceptance. Microsoft is one of the few companies out there that can be about this change. A replacement for jpg is sorely needed and if MS is the only one that can do it, I'll take it. Many people fear that MS will start to charge royalties in the future has a very low chance. In reality just like their attempt to charge royalties for FAT16 (which was released in an open standard similar to the HD format) it had been open for so long that the courts ruled they couldn't do it. But MS reputation is so bad many people won't believe them no matter what happens.

Mark
Posted by Striker77s (55 comments )
Link Flag
Disagree... MS is not Apple
MS (like them or not) is actually one of the more open software companies out there. They may not adhere to all published RFC standards, but they encourage others to use their technology. An innovation such as this can only help.

I am glad the MS has made this format and not Apple. Apple has a history of not sharing. Their whole computing platform has been closed since inception. You can't even play iTunes songs in Windows Media Player. (That is crazy!)
Posted by frankwick (413 comments )
Link Flag
You couldn't pay me enough!
Why does MS always try to control the file format?

First MP3s to WMV now this? I am sorry, but given their track record on interoperability and format sharing (SMB2, Doc, etc) I simply do not trust them.

Besides they are solving a problem that seems to only exist in their heads.

I will stick with RAW and JPG Thanks!
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
As a professional photographer.....
As a professional photographer I welcome the change.

Yes, RAW is good. However, shooting in RAW can be slow and the file sizes are enormous! My lab will not accept RAW images for processing.

On the other hand, JPG is fast, all programs support it, the labs accept it, but there can be artifacting and loss of detail.

If MS can work with the camera makers to have "HD Photo" as an option AND work with the major labs to support processing I would use it in an instant.
Posted by frankwick (413 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If your business is photography you don't use JPG to begin with...
I don't think they'll take MS format either the machines run on old
programing. Besides RAW=TIF for a useful purposes if you are
using JPG as your format to take a image you are not capturing the
full image.
Posted by fathomsdeep (7 comments )
Link Flag
Then you are the only professional photographer....
Well I as a professional photographer would never shoot in anything but raw....and 99% of professionals only shoot in raw...there is no reason for this new format...and why would MS create a format and give it away free...out of the goodness of their hearts...come on...there is some other reason to invest time and MONEY into this...they are doing it to create some other market...not sure what as I have not seen the format, but you can rest assure they aren't doing it just to be nice.....
Posted by grossph (172 comments )
Link Flag
I would use it if...
I would use it if it wasn't a Microsoft technology.
The reason is because I do not trust them and tend to keep away from them and go with open standards instead.

Microsoft is so closed that there is no benefit to the consumer, and we all know how abusive Microsoft is with their monopoly.

Dare we give them another one?
Posted by t8 (3716 comments )
Link Flag
Pro photographers
Pro photographers are crazy if they use jpeg. It damages photos
right out of the box. There is no highlight recovery, no fixing of
off white balance, etc., etc. RAW files are easy to handle, and
with either Apple's Aperture or the soon-to-be-released (Feb
19) Photoshop Lightroom, there is no excuse for not being able
to handle RAW files even better than anything in the past. In
fact, Lightroom works with TIF and JPEG files too. No reason it
can't work with this new format as well if it catches on. But to
state pro photographers prefer jpeg is patent nonsense. Only
ones who don't care about the long-term viability of their
photos shoot jpeg.

Having been a pro myself since '85, I can tell you I wish I had
original scans that weren't jpegs. Back in the day our pagination
system went through a Wintel 286 box into a Sun Server. That
bottleneck forced us to keep our photos to 8 megabyte jpegs
(when open in Photoshop) so they wouldn't clog up the system.
(Deadlines are critical at newspapers, no bottlenecks allowed).

So this new format comes out. And MS promises not to charge
for it. Yeah, like they wouldn't charge for FAT? Now they try to
make every CF/SD/MicroSD card manufacturer pay a royalty to
use FAT? All they have to do is claim that it hurts them
financially so they can break their promise.

Even if they don't charge for it (like the pledge they had to keep
IE free when they took on Netscape) they can still design it in a
way to drive people to Windows. It might work with OSX, Linux
and other OSs, but the user experince will likely be crippled in
comparison to the way it works in Vista.

You can bet your bottom dollar this is another embrace, extend
and extinguish campaign for MS. Luckily, most photographers
are too smart to give up the power and flexibility of RAW files to
give Microsoft any advantage.
Posted by ewelch (767 comments )
Link Flag
You guys are funny!
The number of posters that never even bothered to read the story or do even a few seconds of investigation into the question of royalties is quite funny!

Good to know that 10 years on, C/ZDNet hasn't changed a bit! It was 10 years ago this very week I became a regular reader of C/ZDnet for amusement with my morning coffee. The names have changed, but the posts are EXACTLY the same!

Thanks, all!
Posted by KTLA_knew (385 comments )
Reply Link Flag
ROTFL! Yeah, right...
Here's why it won't work:

1) .jpg is a universal platform-independent standard. Good luck ditching that.

1a) If done right and with decent software, .jpg compression leaves no artifacts that can be seen by a typical user.

2) Professional graphics types don't want no stinking compression when working with files locally, so they'll use something not compressed, compelte with layer info and/or alpha channels.

3) Like it says in the article: "[b]A further complication is that the enthusiasts dissatisfied with JPEG and most likely to appreciate HD Photo already are embracing an alternative: the raw image formats that provide detailed, unprocessed data straight off the camera's image sensor.[/b]"

Professional photographers already have .RAW format (a non-compressed raw CCD-output file) from which to work on w/o any intermediary software to dicker with aside from their camera-maker's plugin into P-Shop or (insert fave editor here). If you want it printed, you convert it to a no-compression .jpg, or you go to a professional printer using .tif (or preferably, something that uses CMYK color values instead of RGB, so that the printer doesn't have to do that conversion for you).

4) "[b]"The day will come when somebody says, 'That picture you did at Mount Whatever--I want a big copy of that,'" Tapp said. "People look back at images they've done and think, 'I wish I had a higher-resolution camera or better file.'"[/b]"

...BS. True resolution stops cold at whatever your camera shot it at. Anything else to enlarge it will always sacrifice sharpness, and will almost always lead to pixellation and artifacts. If you want a big resolution, you shoot it at max resolution right there, on the scene, and save it in the camera's native format, which can always be converted later on.

The MSFT PR Flack failed to account for film and slide scans, which will always be dependent on the scanner, as the negatives and slides will always be of the same size, same chemical composition, etc. Your only hope there isn't some file format; it'll be the resolution of the scanner itself. No file format can deny physics FFS...

I don't need a file format to make a bigger scan of a negative - stuff I scanned years ago w/ an old Acer 2700 film scanner (@2048 resolution), I can re-scan now with my current rig - a Nikon CoolscanIV (@4000 res) without the worry or regrets, or have the local photo shop scan it on a drum scanner @ 8000 or higher if I'm, oh, printing something the size of a billboard...

5) there are already file formats that do 16 (and even 24) bpp for internal use once I convert it from RAW... some 'innovation', huh?

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
intentions
Just curious what you think MS' longer-term intentions and goals
might be for this HD Photo format.
Posted by sjkx (49 comments )
Link Flag
you're joking?
"but they encourage others to use their technology"

? by locking customers into their technologies.

"You can't even play iTunes songs in Windows Media Player.
(That is crazy!)"

Is it just as crazy that you can't play protected Windows media in
iTunes or on an iPod?

The delusions of partisan biases, sigh.
Posted by sjkx (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RAW vs Jpeg vs HD Photo
Jpeg has its uses, times when the people using them do not need any enhancement.

RAW is used usually when I take photos to do designs on them. However Jpeg still works fine.

No matter what, I think what is really on the line here is our expectations and customer expectations (if you are a professional).

I would say to maximize the potential of the camera ability the best bet is still using RAW and covert it to whatever format the lab can print.

I say getting rid of proprietary RAW and have a open standard RAW is higher on the agenda than replacing JPEG. If JPEG is so crap, then use RAW. I believe the memory cards of today is fast enough to handle slightly larger files so it is not of consequence.

The only people who may want speed with RAW would be the sports photographers and/or nature photographers. Otherwise most people out there would be ok with JPEGs and RAWs.
Posted by wilswong (22 comments )
Reply Link Flag
proprietary RAW
"I say getting rid of proprietary RAW and have a open standard RAW
is higher on the agenda than replacing JPEG."

There's wisdom in that statement.
Posted by sjkx (49 comments )
Link Flag
Slightly?!!
On my camera, a high quality jpeg is about 4 MBs, the same image in RAW (Compressed) is 10 MBs and 20MBs (Uncompressed), and even using proprietary flash memory, I can still capture 2-3 JPEG images in the same time as 1 RAW.

Over time this issue will become moot, but it is still a big reality for current products.

Also, RAW is a lousy format for anything other than capturing the original image, but especially for archiving. A Nikon camera I used several years ago would provide RAW, but the latest Photoshop plug-in from Nikon won't even read those files.

I can appreciate what MS is trying to do here, and perhaps combined with what Adobe is doing for RAW, we can move digital photography to better level of interoperability.
Posted by adlyb1 (123 comments )
Link Flag
Microsoft HD Format
This is just another attempt by Microsoft to co-opt everything in the world. I am a professional photographer and I can assure you that we do NOT need another image format. If MS ran the world back in the days of film, they would have tried to replace 35mm film with 36mm (or 34mm) film just to muck things up to their advantage. Like Bob Newhart says in his psychiatrist routine:

JUST STOP IT!
Posted by malibrate (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
not another one...
Aren't there enough image formats already available? sheesh. Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator export in so many formats....


<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ashgilpin.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.ashgilpin.com</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.eyepinch.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.eyepinch.com</a>
Posted by ashgilpincom (30 comments )
Reply Link Flag
ms, please go to hell
Apparently the monopoly is going after another good thing. Wonder if IE will support web sites with jpgs anymore? Or cameras that support jpg?
Posted by yingyangyodel (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hurray!
Another Apple fanboy on these commentaries... Go crawl back into your hole. You don't see people criticizing Apple's moves do you? (Except for CNET sometimes) If this is "...another good thing", then why are you mad about it? Is it because it's Microsoft and not Apple that has invented it? Rethink your biased thoughts.
Posted by whizkid454 (157 comments )
Link Flag
Just say no
The primary reason, IMO, that Microsoft ever develops a file format is to lock in customers. Why else would they ignore formats like ODF and promote their own?

If you want to run MS software, fine. But do yourself a favor and keep your options open.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Typical answer...
Why does Apple promote their Quicktime or protected songs in iTunes and not use a format such as general MPEG or MP3? The same reason. They want to be "all that". They want to be part of everything so they don't feel left out. Create your own format so you can have the fame. It's all part of the game of business.

Apparently you missed the point that this format was going to be OPEN in the first place! Please reread the article before posting information that is not true.
Posted by whizkid454 (157 comments )
Link Flag
MS HDPHOTO = RAW deal
Hello...?

RAW format is the defacto HD photography professional industry standard Citizen Gates &#38; Big Brother Ballmer.

Why not just make a HD photo software program that works with RAW is the standard?

Stupid arrogant monopolists trying to once again skew / extend / embrace / extinguish a market to their monopoly &#38; wallets.

"IDIOTS" Napoleon Dynomite.
Posted by Llib Setag (951 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RAW != RAW
Aren't there several vendor-specific RAW formats?
Posted by sjkx (49 comments )
Link Flag
Hello...no standard
Basically every camera manufacturer has a different specification for RAW, even between models of their own cameras. The graphics software companies are spending tons of time constantly updating their software chasing this problem. It is the primary reason Adobe is pushing the Digital Negative standard to try and reign in the chaos.

Next a RAW file is exactly that, the raw data from the CMOS sensor bypassing all compensation for image quality which mean EVERY picture will have be post processed in graphics software.

The other issue with RAW is size. Since there is no compression, these files can be 2-6 times larger than a lightly compressed jpeg and 2-3 times larger than TIFF or PNG.

Microsoft is simply trying to provide a better solution than traditional JPEG and avoid the patent issues of JPEG-2000 without resorting to significantly larger file sizes of TIFF or PNG.
Posted by adlyb1 (123 comments )
Link Flag
Hello??
You obviously know very little about digital photography.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "de facto" RAW format in the industry.

Instead there are a plethora of proprietary formats from Canon (called CRW), Nikon (called NEF), Olympus (ORF), Fuji (RAF), Kodak (DCR), etc.

They are ALL different and incompatible with each other.

Adobe has tried to push their own format called DNG with no success.

But even assuming there were a raw standard, we *STILL* need a JPEG replacement.

Do you really want your web browser to download 24-bit 10+ megapixel AdobeRGB images all the time?
Posted by mbenedict (1001 comments )
Link Flag
Oh yeah, another BRILLIANT move from Ballmer et. al.
That's the way to get a new standard adopted: tie it to an OS upgrade that nobody wants.
Posted by mh20932 (41 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Microsquirt's new image format
It'll likely disappear after three days or three viewings and only be visible on brown little boxes.
Posted by iamotaku (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Why PNG didn't catch on
The article states "Likewise, the PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format fixed issues with GIF (Graphics Interchange Format), but it hasn't replaced it."

One reason, of course, is that Microsoft never supported the specification completely; transparent PNGs didn't work in Internet Explorer until very recently.
Posted by jdeisenberg (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Only part of the picture
PNG is a living example of death by committee.

It was originally planned as a replacement for GIF following the Unisys Patent debacle, but then the feature creep began with the next target being JPEG (more than 256 colors), following shortly by TIFF (Layers, MetaData, Transparencies, etc.).

The result was TIFF Jr. with an overly complex file format that could result in compatibility issues and bloated file sizes with useless data (at least for viewing in a browser).

To make matters worse, PNG didn't directly support basic frame animation like GIF, instead using a separate, but closely couple file format (MNG), which was initially supported by several browsers, but removed later because no working group was actively supporting the format. This was a big hit for PNG, because when Internet based ads moved beyond static images, most moved to the simplicity of GIF animation, rather than directly to Flash.

The good news is PNG isn't dead. Newer software continues to unravel the format complexity and provide better support and interoperability and as bandwidth and processing capabilities continue to grow, PNG will become and even stronger format, but with it's many limitations, it is doubtful it will ever dominate.
Posted by adlyb1 (123 comments )
Link Flag
if it works
I'll just keep shooting raw and then save in whatever format I
want... tiff jpg msft whatever... THE standard has become RAW
everything else has it's pro's and con's... microsoft's new "bitmap
pro" What me Worry?
Posted by ihatetv (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yeah, right... (NOT)
Try running Darwin on your non-Apple hardware. NOT.

They took an OS that runs on just about every platform out there (FreeBSD), crippled it to run on overpriced Mac crap, then called it open source.

Nice try.
Posted by mbenedict (1001 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Mac crap?
Apple may be a lot of things, but their hardware is hardly crap. Have you looked inside a G5 case? There is very little out there in the pee c world that can compare. Apple has excellent industrial design. Comparing it to a typical Dell system is a joke. Dell makes some decent systems (XPS 700, for instance) but they're not cheap either.
Posted by hotchili17 (1 comment )
Link Flag
A
Because clients don't want to deal with the multitudes of incompatible raw formats out there.

Name a single national agency that accepts raw format. There isn't one.

Most (including Getty and Alamy) *do* accept JPEGs (at Adobe level 12 or equivalent).
Posted by mbenedict (1001 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What does HD stand for?
If it does not actually stand for high definition, then what is it? To
the vast majority of consumers who see "HD" it is going to mean
hi-def, yet Microsoft says that is not what it stands for. Sounds like
a misleading marketing tactic, and is not a good way to get others
on board.

Have a nice day!
Posted by lesfilip (496 comments )
Reply Link Flag
There is already a standard
It is named JPEG 2000.

MS must be dreaming just like they thought WMA thing may
crash mp3 and aac.

People use industry open standards, even Joe Sixpacks learned it.
Posted by Ilgaz (573 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not fully supported...
...because the group that developed JPEG 2000 did not completely lock down intellectual property issues involving the compression method used in this format, so many software providers have avoided providing support for it, fearing a repeat of the Unisys patent debacle with GIF.

In fact, JPEG-2000 is excluded from Debian for this very reason which keeps it out of several open source projects like any Gecko based browsers.

Not saying, it isn't a good format because it is, but it comes with some baggage that will limit it's adoption.
Posted by adlyb1 (123 comments )
Link Flag
Apple has jpeg 2000 support out of the box
Jpeg 2000, which is industry standard for wavelet compression is
supported on OS X via built in Quicktime framework.

I think Windows customers should have asked why it wasn't ever
supported. I guess we saw the reason right now.
Posted by Ilgaz (573 comments )
Reply Link Flag
and. . .
it's been out for 7 years and nobody is using it.
Posted by DrtyDogg (3084 comments )
Link Flag
This just in... MS leverages monopoly to impose "standard"
what else is new?
Posted by Mark Greene (163 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Encourage its own standard
I think a better terminology would be to encourage its own standard. If they made Jpeg, PNG, and other formats unusable on Vista, then you could say they were imposing it. For now, it is something they are building in.

Now, is it an unfair advantage compared to some little start-up company that may have come up with something better? Yes. Of course.
Posted by airwalkery2k (117 comments )
Link Flag
Again...
...because the group that developed JPEG 2000 did not completely lock down intellectual property issues involving the compression method used in this format, so many software providers have avoided providing support for it, fearing a repeat of the Unisys patent debacle with GIF.

Apple is willing to assume the liability of somone like Unisys coming out of nowhere and requiring licensing on the format, and I applaud them for doing it, but most software vendors have balked after being burned over GIF.

In any case, MS isn't just trying to replace, but improve at the same time. The HD Photo format provides better quality than JPEG-2000 and doesn't come with IP baggage. Now, whether it is adopted is entirely up to the market.
Posted by adlyb1 (123 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.