Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Move to be the End of JPEG?

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the just-a-little-bit-better dept.

Graphics 447

jcatcw writes "Microsoft Corp. will submit a new photo format to an international standards organization. The format, HD Photo (formerly known as Windows Media Photo), can accommodate lossless and lossy compression. Microsoft claims that adjustments can be made to color balance and exposure settings that won't discard or truncate data that occurs with other bit-map formats."

cancel ×

447 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nup, No, Nada. (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284052)

Not going to end jpg - everyone dissatisfied with JPG is already using RAW. Everyone satisified with jpg will stick with jpg.

This is going to enjoy the same sort of limited uptake as jpeg2000 vs jpg, mp4/wma/ogg vs mp3, png vs gif, etc.

Few other things to note:

1) The 'HD' doesn't stand for High Definition, it's just there to get the association with HD TV in consumers minds. *rolls eyes*

2) This technology is patented to the hilt & the licensing terms for the HD Photo Device Porting Kit 1.0 licensing terms [wikipedia.org] specifically exclude copyleft (GPL style) licenses.

You're Just A Whiney Mac Fanboy! (-1, Offtopic)

Prysorra (1040518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284094)

/(runs and hides)

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (-1, Troll)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284112)

"2) This technology is patented to the hilt & the licensing terms for the HD Photo Device Porting Kit 1.0 licensing terms [wikipedia.org] specifically exclude copyleft (GPL style) licenses."

yeah, well, one more thing the GIMP won't be able to do that Photoshop will. What else is new? I'm sure all 5 GIMP users will be disappointed. Then again, 4 out of 5 GIMP users recommend not using this technology so, perhaps only one will be disappointed.

PNG with bzip2 compression? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284124)

The PNG format uses the DEFLATE compression algorithm to minimize its data size. DEFLATE is the same compression method used by gzip. We all know that for larger files, the bzip2 compression utility tends to obtain better compression ratios than gzip. So would it not be possible to use the bzip2 algorithm instead of DEFLATE when compressing the image data, to obtain a smaller image file size at the cost of greater compression and decompression times?

Re:PNG with bzip2 compression? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284292)

I think it would be possible, but you have to ask:
  • Does "block-sorting" improve compression of images as much as compression of text/code/data?
  • Is space more valuable than time? CPUs are becoming faster, but storage is becoming cheaper too...

Re:PNG with bzip2 compression? (5, Insightful)

putaro (235078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284592)

Is space more valuable than time? CPUs are becoming faster, but storage is becoming cheaper too...

Don't forget that it's no longer just space/time tradeoffs. There's also the network bandwidth tradeoff. And network bandwidth is not on the same kind of curve as CPU's or storage at least for WANs.

Re:PNG with bzip2 compression? (2, Insightful)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284374)

Why not use LZMA then, which is both faster and has better compression than bzip2?

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (0, Offtopic)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284140)

1) The 'HD' doesn't stand for High Definition,it's just there to get the association with HD TV in consumers minds.

Whew, for a minute there I thought maybe it was for Honoring Dvorak.

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (1, Insightful)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284154)

Which raw are you talking about? Is it DNG, PEF or a hundred other proprietary raw formats?

limited uptake as jpeg2000 vs jpg, mp4/wma/ogg vs mp3, png vs gif, etc As opposed to a rapid updake of Pentax's PEF raw format. How many browsers do you know that render that format?

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (2, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284234)

Which raw are you talking about? Is it DNG, PEF or a hundred other proprietary raw formats?

Doesn't matter, the point is that anyone who's dissatisifed with JPG has allready found an alternative.

How many browsers do you know that render that format?

If you'd bothered to read the article before commenting, you would know that support in the camera is the support that matters.

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (4, Insightful)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284460)

"Doesn't matter, the point is that anyone who's dissatisifed with JPG has allready found an alternative."

That's not what you said. You said "Not going to end jpg - everyone dissatisfied with JPG is already using RAW." RAW is a camera format, not an output format. No one uses RAW as a replacement for jpeg except during image acquisition.

As for everyone already using alternatives, that may be so but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. This may not be the answer but it's naive to think that the image formats we have now are all there will ever be.

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (1)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284534)

If you'd bothered to read the article before commenting,

<Gerald Butler voice [imdb.com] > "Read the article? THIS IS SLASHDOT!!!!!!!!!" </Gerald Butler voice>

:-)

Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (0, Troll)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284206)

The moment you save them?

Some licenses are best meant to preserve the orginal work of art, not enforce the shared derivitaves thereof.

GPL doesn't extend to user data (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284230)

It applies to the code

Re:GPL doesn't extend to user data (-1, Troll)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284286)

But isnt that the "grey area" that MP3 Patent lawsuits are brought upon? MP3's aren't the data, its the codec. If the actual "bits" as written by the licensed software is part of the logic of the program couldn't someone say that by using a GPL program to make images based off a GPL codec in a GPL format would have to be GPL'd?

In a sense its like compiling a program, when its compiled it isn't code, its executable data.

just curious. I've wondered what would happen if we moved the "fine line".

Re:GPL doesn't extend to user data (4, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284326)

No. Documents you create with OO.org aren't all GPLed either. The GPL specifically applies to code. You own the copyright to anything you create, even if you use someone else's program to do it. Now, if you use someone else's work and modify it, such as modifying a GPLed program, THEN you have to abide by their copyright wishes.

But ODF format isn't GPL (-1, Troll)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284398)

If the ODF format was a "GPL" format would the resulting data have to be GPL?

Re:But ODF format isn't GPL (2, Informative)

creysoft (856713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284414)

No.

Re:GPL doesn't extend to user data (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284392)

In a sense its like compiling a program, when its compiled it isn't code, its executable data.

FYI, GNU software that does stuff like that (e.g. GNU Bison, which is the GNU implementation of yacc) has an exception so that the problem you mention does not apply.

Re:GPL doesn't extend to user data (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284420)

ahh good find.

Seriously, i hadn't thought about GPL being applied to a "process" in a way such a codec, always thought of it form the source side. A codec is a we bit different since its basically creating something on the fly and if the GPL can apply to a process to keep that process free/unpatented wouldn't anything you apply that process to be subject to the license as a derivative work?

going out on a limb i'm sure :)

strange one would exclude open source licensing as that even excludes software on the microsoft side of the fence unless that is meant to protect the codec and the resulting data from derivative work type licensing issues to begin with.

Re:Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (3, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284264)

Some licenses are best meant to preserve the orginal work of art, not enforce the shared derivitaves thereof.

Do you believe that your documentswill be subjected to MS's licensing terms when you save them in word? Of course not.

The GPL does not cover works created using GPLd tools. Learn the difference between code & content.

Re:Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284278)

Learn the difference between code & content.
Would you please elaborate?

Re:Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284386)

Code is a microwave. Content is a burrito. General Electric may have a patent on technology used in the microwave you're nuking your burrito with, but it's still your burrito to do with as you wish.

Re:Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (1, Interesting)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284500)

Thats not the same.

Code = Software
Codec = Process
Data = Product

If you GPL the code and GPL the codec and the Data is a mix of the Codec and Product where does the GPL stop? I'll have to look at GCC's license to see how they do the same because technically i could edit a binary and not edit the code but still be subject to the GPL correct?

Re:Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284348)

Content can be licensed GPL. I see it for games to websites to different public license variants.

I'm just curious with codecs especially. I understand GPL as it is for source code but what does GPL mean if you use that license for your source and your product if that product was your own proprietary data set such as a high fidelity lossless compression archive?

Re:Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284504)

YOU ARE SO STUPID. SHUT UP.

Re:Would you want your images succeptable to GPL (1)

jasontheking (124650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284642)

does the same reasoning extend to compilers?

Exactly... (2, Informative)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284216)

this is the same story with windows media..

the lesson is: the looser the licensing terms (while still maintaining an actual standard), the more widely used it will be.

this means microsft, sony, and real can keep scrambling to their hearts content, but they wont touch a majority share when they treat formats like this.

Re:Exactly... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284514)

It also means formats with only GPL'd implementations don't take off either. Like DjVu.

RAW? (4, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284256)

"Everyone dissatisfied with JPG is already using RAW"?

I don't know where you're getting that statement from. Everybody dissatisfied with JPG - which I can only imagine stems from the fact that it is lossy compression - is either using:
PNG - because it's common, free to use, etc. etc.
EXR - because it'll allow you to store whatever the hell you want
GIF - because it's ubiquitious and is free to use nowadays (not that too many people cared a few years ago)

'RAW' isn't used by anybody. 'RAW' does not exist. 'RAW' is a collective name for a shitload of formats by a smaller shitload of digital camera companies. And it is never "RAW".. it is never raw data.. it's compressed, stored integratedly or separately, encrypted or not (SONY, among other) and contains a bunch of camera data. The closest thing to a "RAW" format is, say, PFM (portable/pixel float map) or any other format that just stores every color(group) as a bunch of bytes in a long chunk with minimal to zero header/footer information whatsoever that you can only open if you know things like bitdepth and dimension. The closest thing to a unified 'RAW' format for cameras is Adobe's DNG (Digital Negative) - and that's finding slow (no?) adoption as it is. And the closest thing to a unified non-'RAW' format for cameras that isn't lossy compressed is TIFF. None of which you can toss on a website and make viewable in any of the major browsers without plugin installation (if even available!)

That said, I agree with all your other points, especially point 1. Microsoft should be kicked even when down for jumping on the HD bandwagon with a product (or format) that has nothing whatsoever to do with HD.

Re:RAW? (2, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284544)

The raw format of cameras is far more "raw" than PFM or any other RGB format. Camera raw formats save the actual output from the image sensor, before applying the numerous algorithms needed to massage the data into RGB form. The point of camera raw data is not just to avoid compression, it is to do the highly complex processing needed at a later stage, and allow for finer control over the resulting output.

Re:RAW? (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284636)

That doesn't make it "RAW".. What you are referring to is storing the image sensor data, rather than the demosaic'd Bayer (or whatever) pattern. True enough - but they're still not storing that in a "RAW" format. A "RAW" format might be (say it stores it as 8 bytes *ick*)
RGBGRGBGRGBGRGBG
GRGBGRGBGRGBGRGB

etc. stored as just a bunch of bytes - and sans the linebreak. Then it's "RAW", so you can read it out with whatever can parse a binary, without having to resort to looking up how that data is stored, how to get it out, decrypting it (SONY), etc.

Don't confuse RAW storage with RAW information, if you will :)

erp, forgot... (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284656)

you could store the RAW information in a proper RAW format (e.g. PFM) just fine, and read it out, and parse it with ease, etc. The same can't be said for all the camera manufacturers' proprietary different 'RAW' formats. There's a reason dcraw.c is a fairly big source file :)

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (5, Informative)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284258)

everyone dissatisfied with JPG is already using RAW

Actually, in the context of digital photography (which I assume is what you're talking about here, though JPEG is of course not limited to that) "everyone" uses TIFF. Just try to do freelance for a news agency and watch how quickly they ask you for TIFF files, which only the high-end cameras can generate.

I suppose some of the smaller shops or newspapers and whatnot do use RAW, but for Reuters et.al if it's not TIFF you're not getting a paycheck. The same goes for the big stock photography companies and so on.

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (2, Interesting)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284360)

Isn't it trivial to generate a TIFF from RAW using Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom or the software that came with the camera?

As for Microsoft's format, if it's not freely usable I don't see it taking off, and others have said it can't be used in GPL style projects, so it's clearly not for me.

It might be nice to have a format that compressed better than JPEG and had higher quality. Does JPEG-2000 render in web browsers?

D

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (1, Informative)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284516)

It may be trivial as long as you don't care about the quality of the output. If that's the case, one would wonder why you shot RAW in the first place.

RAW is not an image format. It's a dump of all the sensor data that can be used to create an image. A very substantial amount of processing is required, some of it subjective, to arrive at an image.

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (1)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284260)

mp4/wma/ogg vs mp3

Sorry to burst your bubble, but mp4 is a video container format, much akin to avi, mkv, ogm etc. It's not an audio format :).

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284310)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but mp4 is a video container format, much akin to avi, mkv, ogm etc. It's not an audio format :).

Erm, while my usage of the 'mp4' wasn't completely correct (it is a container format), it's a multimedia container format [wikipedia.org] :

is a multimedia container format standard specified as a part of MPEG-4. It is most commonly used to store digital audio and digital video streams, especially those defined by MPEG, but can also be used to store other data such as subtitles and still images.
That said, it's pretty clear I was talking about aac/mpeg2-7.

wont change a thing... (2, Funny)

thekm (622569) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284270)

there are plenty of formats out there that are better than JPEG, and yet only the popular will continue to live on.

There used to be a direct JPEG competitor (wave based raster compression) called 'Lightning Strike' or something... you could actually control the level of compression by an alpha channel. That way, like a portrait, you could keep the face in sharp detail without loss, and the rest will be compressed to heck leaving a file size and compression truly in the hands of the person making the file.

But it's not even about file size... in many instances, if you want a lossless image just the plain 'PSD' photoshop is by far the best. Many times I've had to send large images for adverts, and just used the flat PSD image as it was the smallest file size and obviously no loss in quality.


The image format war is just about popularity... which is why Gif has lasted through everything even though PNG is just as good and more open. New image formats will actually have to do something new for them to gain any traction at all... a pervasive vector and raster combination image should have been available by now and renderable in browsers. There's EPS, but we need browsers to support these things if they're going to get anywhere for the web... anything else but end users saying "fantastic, I really need to get that" just wont have a hope.

...actually flash could probably be the good combo format, but it's hard to get designers to output flash that doesn't have some form of retarded movement in it.


And while it's kind of on the topic, something like MetaStream should have been pervasive by now... along with LightningStrike, there's another "should have been awesome" product. *sigh*



But with JPEG being everywhere, the JVM's, the server solutions, the just-about-freaking-everything... there is no way MS can even think of threatening JPEG. It's just absurd to think they can.

Re:Nup, No, Nada. (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284314)

I don't see how this would replace jpg in any remote way whatsoever. Where are most images stored and viewed? On the internet and a browser. I need a small, high quality image. I don't need to go visit cnn.com and adjust the tint, hue and color levels of the "breaking news" graphic on their site.

Not to mention, I am highly skeptical of any attempt Microsoft claims to be making toward "standardization".

Don't be so sure. (1)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284496)

It might not completely wipe out jpg, but I don't think people would care enough to try to hang on to it. Most people don't really care what format their photos are in so long as they can edit them and view them without requiring a new hard-drive for storage.

All Microsoft would have to do is add a camera to the Zune with this format and consumers would be using it. If it actually offers lower file size and better picture most manufactures would be happy to add it to their products , claiming its benefits as their own.

If devices support it, image programs will support it and it'll be used more if its actually significantly better. Not to mention as you said the letters HD have quite high marketing potential.

I'm not saying it will be the biggest thing ever, destroying jpg and becoming the ultimate format, more that I don't think it would be too hard for it to do so as I doubt people are really that attached to the format of their photos.

(Plus if Microsoft are smart they could make an 'image library' explorer/organiser progam, that would offer to convert your images and save you xxxMB.)
 

Meh (5, Funny)

Desert Raven (52125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284062)

I predict it will succeed in displacing jpg just like png displaced both gif and jpg.

Re:Meh (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284224)

I predict it will succeed in displacing jpg just like png displaced both gif and jpg.
When MS adds "HD Photo" into the next OS (or patches it into Vista) & their line of Office programs as the default, what do you think is going to happen?

FTFA:
"Microsoft said HD Photo's lightweight algorithm causes less damage to photos during compression, with higher-quality images that are half the size of a JPEG."

PNG has well known limitations when it comes to photographs.
Size is a big one of them.

Re:Meh (1)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284444)

"Microsoft said HD Photo's lightweight algorithm causes less damage to photos during compression, with higher-quality images that are half the size of a JPEG."

Didn't they say that about wma vs mp3? It wasn't true then...

better example (1, Flamebait)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284248)

I predict it will succeed in displacing jpg just like png displaced both gif and jpg.

Or WMA replaced MP3. png did replace gif with good reason and could take the place of jpeg without much cost to device makers. M$ pushed WMA as hard as they could, making it the default format for WMP, shoving it down the throats of device makers while forbiding them to use ogg, but WMA still flopped. It flopped because it sucked. They said it was better but it was not and everyone ignored them.

Re:better example (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284450)

png did replace gif with good reason

Really? And where exactly did you get that from?

PNG (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284066)

I thouht PNG was supposed to be the end of JPEG

OTH perhaps this will be the end of "JPG"

Re:PNG (3, Insightful)

JeepFanatic (993244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284098)

I thought PNG was supposed to replace GIF because it can do transparencies and because GIF used to be encumbered by patent issues while PNG was open.

Re:PNG (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284576)

I thought PNG was supposed to replace GIF because it can do transparencies and because GIF used to be encumbered by patent issues while PNG was open.

"PNG images are almost completely superior to GIFs except for the fact they do not support animations, therefore making them, for all intents and purposes of ruining browsers, useless." [encycloped...matica.com]

Re:PNG (3, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284174)

PNG was not supposed to replace JPEG; it was supposed to replace GIF. Unfortunately, thanks to massive delays in getting PNG support correctly working in IE, that never happened. Also, some people still insist they need animated GIFs, which PNG doesn't do (see MNG, which is nowhere). It's sad, as for most file sizes of images appropriate for GIF, PNG was way smaller (unless you get way, WAY small, as in under 150bytes or so (not kilobytes, BYTES). Also, Adobe is still unable to provide decent compression on the PNGs its software generates, so to this day, you need compression tools like pngout or pngcrush (pngout usually produces smaller files). Weird that you can still lossly compress a lossy image, but whatever.

This won't be the end of anything unless it is unemcumbered by patents, and as a previous poster noted, it isn't. So, this is a non-event.

Perhaps the group that came up with PNG can come up with a patent-free replacement for JPEG?

Re:PNG (1)

280Z28 (896335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284178)

PNG was "supposed to replace" GIF [burnallgifs.org] when Unisys [wikipedia.org] made a move to collect unexpected royalties on GIFs [wikipedia.org] used on the web. And for many designers, it has replaced it with smaller file sizes and lossless compression options. Unfortunately it doesn't support animation and MNG [wikipedia.org] never gained the steam PNG did, so GIF will still be around for a while.

jpeg replacements (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284328)

jpeg2000 was supposed to replace jpg.

MS claims that this is better quality/higher compression than jpeg, but that's only true if you don't consider jpeg2000 as jpeg.

Re:jpeg replacements (1)

lindseyp (988332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284506)

Exactly. JP2000 was lossless, was it not?

What happened to that format, anyway? I was expecting it to be ubiquitous by now.

Won't End JPG (4, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284086)

If you're not discarding data when you're adjusting color-balance and other settings, you're by definition not compressing as much as you possibly can.

For example, if I desaturate a photo I'm throwing away tons of color information. If that color information is still being written to the file, the file isn't as small as it could be.

Aside from that, PNG should have dethroned JPG long ago for the very simple reason that it contains an alpha channel -- but I still see plenty of JPG's.

PNG is no replacement for JPG (5, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284164)

PNG is a replacement for GIF, if anything. JPG files are much smaller than PNG files for typical photographs (though can be smaller for line art and the like), which will always leave JPG as the favorite much like FLAC isn't replacing MP3 anytime soon. The alpha channel in PNG is absolutely a nice perk, but thanks to the dim people at Microsoft never supporting it right until IE7, there wasn't much benefit over using GIF files. (Even though PNG did bi-level transparency just as fine as GIF files - even better, you didn't lose 1 palette entry - but that as an aside.)

If you want a JPG replacement - a la OGG Vorbis over MP3 - try JPEG2000 or the lurawave stuff based on wavelets.

Re:PNG is no replacement for JPG (1)

ampathee (682788) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284524)

The alpha channel in PNG is absolutely a nice perk, but thanks to the dim people at Microsoft never supporting it right until IE7, there wasn't much benefit over using GIF files.
Except for the fact that GIF only supports 256 (256!) colours? That seems like rather a large advantage for PNG to me!

I do agree that (high-quality) JPG is better for photos though. Horses for courses, really. Lossy for photos, lossless for icons, line-art, etc.

Re:PNG is no replacement for JPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284616)

As for your .sig, "god" can be replaced by any noun "x", and therefore your statement is vacuous. You'd also say it's "faith" that there's not a pink unicorn in your bedroom right now that disappears the second you poke your head in, correct? Don't be a sheep.

Re:PNG is no replacement for JPG (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284580)

good reply

PNG8 (as opposed to PNG24) is really a replacement for GIF but it suffers from not being able to do frame animation. PNG8's and GIFs normally produce very similar sizes because they use very similar compression techniques. PNG24 does the alpha channel stuff but produces large files and as you say MS scuppered it by not supporting it properly until now in IE7. The only thing that should have succeeded JPEG was JPEG2000 but it doesn't look like that will ever happen (a shame I think).

Re:PNG is no replacement for JPG (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284604)

Even though PNG did bi-level transparency just as fine as GIF files - even better, you didn't lose 1 palette entry

Incorrect. You do lose one palette entry.

Re:Won't End JPG (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284232)

Aside from that, PNG should have dethroned JPG long ago for the very simple reason that it contains an alpha channel -- but I still see plenty of JPG's.

I think that statement alone disqualifies you for giving any sort of opinion on image format. PNG and JPEG are totally different formats, trying to compress different types of images. Each of then sucks at what the other one does well.

Re:Won't End JPG (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284380)

Aside from that, PNG should have dethroned JPG long ago for the very simple reason that it contains an alpha channel -- but I still see plenty of JPG's.
Remember 1995? Dial up modems? 1 megapixel cameras?
Back when file size mattered?

PNG never took over because you end up with files that are 5~10 times greater than JPG. It was a technology ahead of its time.

P.S. PNG was supposed to dethrone GIF

Re:Won't End JPG (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284422)

For example, if I desaturate a photo I'm throwing away tons of color information. If that color information is still being written to the file, the file isn't as small as it could be.

Maybe, but if it gets rid of detail - which is the only way it would get markedly smaller when desaturating - is that what you really want to do? I think the idea isn't really related to compression, but of reversibility - I'm guessing that the color balance info is stored somewhere in the file along with some compressed (or not) version of the raw pixel info, with color levelling being done on the fly when viewing.

In any event, in situations you describe, JPG will still be around for you if it's what you want..

hmmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284102)

this just pisses me off, I mean first they ram HD-DVD down our throats (well not entirely Microsoft but Xbox 360 is linked to this format) and now this...while I'm getting poorer and poorer, the electronics industry is continues to mine for the next generation for its newest revenue stream.

I'm considering just using paper, pencil, rock and scissors from now on.

Re:hmmm (1)

j3richo (674251) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284118)

they rammed it down your throat by making it an optional accessory?

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284340)

the pencil should be fine, but watch out, those other three just can't seem to get along with each other.

What's the catch? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284120)

JPEG and PNG are fine, if we want a HDR capable lossless image format we'll use OpenEXR (No George, we still don't forgive you for Jar Jar). Why do Microsoft have to keep re-inventing the wheel? OpenEXR has mad force powers, Microsoft image formats smell like Ballmers toe nail clippings. What have they patented or what DRM switch and bait are Microsoft trying to pull with this move?

Re:What's the catch? (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284308)

That would be the best way for Microsoft to embed
binary code in the image.

Of course not. (0)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284122)

It just doesn't work that way, folks. Unless Microsoft's new format somehow involves the creation of time-traveling assassins to retroactively prevent its creation, the .JPG file format will continue to exist.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Of course not. (1)

A3gis (708791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284194)

dont forget they can write support for it out of IE.. bad move marketingwise of course, but hey, they're big industry, they can do whatever they want with their products and people will continue to use them.

Re:Of course not. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284404)

Not anymore they can't. Firefox is big enough to stop them from doing over the top stupid stuff like that anymore. They even had to fix IE7 somewhat!

Re:Of course not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284302)

The creation of those Microsoft "time-traveling assassins"® is IP that you do not have permission to possess, distribute, consider, think about, refer to, or otherwise have any association with however tenuous. You are in violation of the TOS, EULA, and eternal goodwill of MS Bob. Please reformat your hard-drive and send us your first-born child.

umm patented and Proprietary a standard? (1)

Treates2 (1004837) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284156)

hmm... i wonder if their patented, trademarked, and proprietary format will come DRM? *ponders*

Yawn (4, Insightful)

ameline (771895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284170)

Doesn't do anything tiff can't

If this is the same as the last time around, they've just taken tiff, duplicated a bunch of the baseline tags for no good reason (other than to make it incompatible), added their own codec (which they could have done to tiff very easily), removed a bunch of useful stuff from tiff, and called it their own image format. It's a real hack job.

It's just MS being the MS we've come to know and love so well -- making their own binary formats in the hopes of extending their monopoly.

What does it cost? (2, Insightful)

e9th (652576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284176)

How does MicroSoft intend to license it?

Re:What does it cost? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284282)

the most evil way possible, but it will just render it as a windows only niche...

Lousy speculative headlines (1)

sixteenvolt (202302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284198)

As Thaelon [slashdot.org] said: If your headline ends in a question mark, it's not news.

Re:Lousy speculative headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284318)

Slashdot stopped being about news a long time ago. You want news? Then f*** off to Digg or something, and leave us trolls to chew on the stale dupes in peace...

Re:Lousy speculative headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284550)

...to Digg...
HAHA!

Microsoft influence is waning (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284244)

I doubt that Microsoft will make any headway in this. MS is becoming less and less trusted, and if there is a good alternative that already exists and is supported everywhere it will stick. JPG, GIF, RAW, will stay there. MS, is getting more and more pathetic trying to regain there loosing glory of the 1990's. They have been able to get some marginal headway on SQL servers, and some other software. But for data format standards they haven't gotten a good stronghold on a document foothold From office formats.

"loosing"? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284332)

please dont take this personally, i just feel, after seeing the word "lose" misspelled so many times, to make this post asking people to please learn how to spell lose..

"loose" is an adjective defined as "not firmly tied or held together" or "not properly tightened".

"lose" is a verb defined as "to be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something)".

it's just driven me up the wall having seen it so many times.

Re:"loosing"? (0, Flamebait)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284560)

loosen up already, most people don't care about grammar (or spelling) nazis who are that anal pedantic over an inconsistent language...

If JPEG can't microsoft can't (3, Interesting)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284250)

If JPEG can't develop a standard to effectively replace JPEG (JPEG2000) then I really don't see much hope for Microsoft in doing so.

I think they should call it: (5, Funny)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284268)

displays for sure!

No (3, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284276)

No. Next!

Rationale? We already have JPEG for lossy and PNG for lossless and now that GIF is off-patent we have that too. All of these have un-encumbered implementations. Having lossless and lossy in one format doesn't really offer much of an advantage. Unless this new image format gives me time-traveling X-ray vision into whatever the picture is, why should I care? Extra compression is nice, and it might be worthwhile if you were archiving terabytes of image data. Most web sites are not, so even if it has better compression it's still not worth the hassle of switching. Bandwidth and storage are just not that expensive. In other words, it would have to totally blow away the existing formats by some performance metric. I have a hard time believing the ammount of effort to switch things over could be justified. What could possibly be that much better about any new image format? Anyone remember JPEG 2000? The wavelet compression was really interesting, but it was proprietary, somebody was trying to make money off it, and so nobody cared. It's tough to enter a market where the price is already set at ZERO. The existing product in such a market has to be inferior enough so that people are willing to pony up the extra bills. An example of where this has happened in the recent past is the compiler market. People were willing to pay extra for the Intel compiler even though GCC is free, because the Intel compiler generated faster code. It's been a while since I've looked into that, so I don't know if that's still the situation. Even with the performance difference, many people still just stuck with GCC rather than pay more. This is not MS-bashing. It's just basic economics.

It's not the format, stupid. It's the license. (4, Interesting)

Shayde (189538) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284316)

In reality, this doesn't mean anything, because there's insufficient information in the linked article.

Microsoft, just like any other vendor on the planet, is free to submit anything they like into standards bodies, and ask that they be accepted or considered for use in the world. If Microsoft's new format is useful, fantastic, we all should start using it.

But if, and only if, that format comes free from the burden of licensing or copyright. We've seen how damaging these restrictions can be to simple file format (remember ARC? And all the fun that went on with GIF?) - If Microsoft is releasing an idea for folks to use and adopt? Excellent. If they're pushing an internal format that they hold a patent on, and are requesting other vendors to adopt it? Then it's simply Microsoft once again trying to dick over the industry. And I can't see how it can possibly work under those circumstances.

They don't have the big stick they used to. This is no longer 2000, where the corporate juggernaut simply needed to wave it's financial might and the net doth tremble before it. Microsoft has to tread carefully on an increasingly powerful free software world.

We'll see how this goes. Me, I'm waiting to hear more information.

'HD Photo' blog (2, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284352)

For more information on 'HD Photo' (damn I hate that name), check the blog at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/ [msdn.com]

Hasn't been updated in a good while, but contains plenty of nice information. The various bitdepth storages alone make it an 'interesting' format if nothing else - though I'm sticking with EXR.. just a shame that doesn't offer lossy compression much yet - but then.. that's not its' purpose.

Re:'HD Photo' blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284532)

Interesting blog. But if he reads this:

1 - If details of a picture matter, please make it so when we click on a picture, it actually shows a zoomed version of the picture, not the same thing again.

2 - Must there be an insult to Lena? (the title of the section)

Um, no. (3, Interesting)

retro128 (318602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284358)

Yeah right. When was the last time a proprietary Microsoft format overtook a reigning defacto standard? I also didn't see anything in the article that indicated technology licensing fees. Given that it's Microsoft, I'm pretty sure they're going to charge for it. If they don't, they will once enough people start adopt it. After all, this is Microsoft we're talking about, guys.

Actually, never mind Microsoft. Let's look at the audio arena. The royalty-free OGG format should have bumped off MPG, but still device manufacturers are all too happy to pay Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft to use MP3. In fact, it's still hard to find devices that support OGG at all. The moral of the story is that it's really hard to get anyone to commit development costs to support a new standard, let alone beat out one that's widely supported, even if you are giving away the tech for free.

Re:Um, no. (1)

lindseyp (988332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284542)

>Yeah right. When was the last time a proprietary Microsoft format overtook a reigning defacto standard? .XLS .DOC

Hell, even .WMA is enjoying quite some success.

HD photo... (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284378)

The first thing I think of when I see "HD photo" is 16x9. With most things video and digital moving to widescreen, I wonder when cameras will change to widescreen as their standard picture format.

Yeh sure it is, God told me from above. (0, Flamebait)

liftphreaker (972707) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284434)

Yes sure it's gonna replace JPEG. I think heard a colossally humongous cloud of oinks from up above.

The very fact that it is from mirco$haft, and they hold patents on it, and they strictly control how it is licensed, itself is a huge nail in the coffin. Now if they'd simply published the spec as an open standard and allowed anyone to use it without restrictions, then we'd have a different story.

Personally I'd be very glad if this falls flat on its silly HD face. We already have JPEG2000, maybe it's time to take another look at it, or improve it. This is not the time for yet another proprietary 'new' "standard".

LOL, internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284564)

The very fact that it is from mirco$haft

That's amazing!! "micro$haft"?? Did you come up with that all by yourself?? Bwahahahahahah!!! I mean, that's why I come to Slashdot, for the great comedians! Bwahahahahah!!

All things aside, when did the diggtards start invading Slashdot? I want my Slashdot back!

as long as they donate any patents (1)

Kanasta (70274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284480)

so that we don't get a repeat of the GIF, JPEG, MP3 patent scams coming up again in the future

Badly Written Article (1)

austior (1063772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284486)

From the article:

The format can also accommodate "lossless" and "lossy" compression, two methods of compressing photo data with different effects on image quality.
The journalist clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Lossless compression doesn't effect image quality at all.

Re:Badly Written Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284652)

The journalist clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Lossless compression doesn't effect image quality at all.


Nice nitpicking. Are you an ass by birth or did you learn it on Slashdot?

JPEG KILLER (1)

dino213b (949816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284502)

I was disappointed to not see "Microsoft unleashes JPEG killer" as a title to this article.

Cheating. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18284556)

It doesn't do anything new, its licencing is restrictive, nothing yet supports it, and there are (probably superior) alternatives already available. The only way this will take off is with help from Microsoft's famous dodgy business techniques.

It will be widespread within three years. All Microsoft has to do is pressure all consumer digital camera manufacturers into supporting it. Thats easily done - make it a requirement for a 'Certified Windows Vista Compatable' logo. Or just offer a cross-promotional marketing deal.

What about patents? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18284634)

Does an ISO submission imply anything about lack of patent encumbrance?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>