[MW Forums]

Microsoft has submitted its HD Photo format for considering to the JPEG as a new standard, JPEG XR. more

[airhead]

Unless there is some incompatible Mac inconsistencies, or some crazy fees not mentioned in the article I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it's a better JPEG I'm all for it.

[leicaman]

Quote:

---

Microsoft has submitted its HD Photo format for considering to the JPEG as a new standard, JPEG XR. <a href="/news/2007/07/31/hdphoto/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Yeah, and 20 years from now, when there are massive archives of these files all over the world, Microsoft will change their mind and enforce it? Like they tried with FAT on CF cards?
No thanks. The JPEG group had better come up with concrete guarantees. And there had better be more reliable support than there was for JPEG 2000. Or it's just another failed format.
What we need WAY more is a single RAW file format that all cameras write to. Now that would be a useful standard that I could get behind! DNG or some other file format, doesn't matter. Just give us one and get rid of this proprietary nonsense camera makers try to lock us into. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[DVA_Airwolf]

Jpeg 2000???? - nuff said!

[Philbert]

Somehow, for some reason ... I'd rather my images NOT be tied to anything from Microsoft.

Quote:

---

Or it's just another failed format.

---

Here's hoping ...

[501user]

Quote:

---

Microsoft has submitted its HD Photo format for considering to the JPEG as a new standard, JPEG XR. <a href="/news/2007/07/31/hdphoto/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Hmmm ... MS is playing this game quite a bit recently. See Office "Open" XML passim.

Quote:

---

We are voting on consideration of this new file format for standardisation ... blah, blah, blah said Dr. Daniel Lee, convener of the Joint Photographic Expert Group.

---

Well, how about they get off their arses and complete their own JPEG2000 specification?

Quote:

---

there is currently no accepted way to embed Exif data ...

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
Given that, it's not surprising no one uses it, really ...
Sorry, but I thought it was the business of a standards body to come up with standards not to further the commercial interests of the Borg.

[booga]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Microsoft has submitted its HD Photo format for considering to the JPEG as a new standard, JPEG XR. <a href="/news/2007/07/31/hdphoto/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Yeah, and 20 years from now, when there are massive archives of these files all over the world, Microsoft will change their mind and enforce it? Like they tried with FAT on CF cards?

---

While I share your skepticism of Microsoft, the Open Specification Promise is irrevocable. The only part I'm unclear on is whether it's transferable. That is, are they guaranteeing that if I distribute something under it, that the person I distribute it to will be covered? (While they can't revoke my rights, are they guaranteeing that they'll never revoke or substantially change the OSP itself? Will it always be available to users of these specs?)

[Wings]

"Although Microsoft has patents on the technology used in HD Photo, it has stated plans to make the specification available under its Open Specification Promise, which makes available certain Microsoft technologies to open-source developers."
Open Specification "Promise"? Like, is there anyone in their right mind who would trust MS to keep any promise? I wouldn't hold my breath that there isn't some loophole that MS will exploit in the future to try and rake in a few bucks from anyone who even looks at a photo in this format.
And what about DRM? Anyone wanna bet that this format has DRM up the Ying-Yang?
MS should just bug out and leave open standards to people who know what that means.

[Mac007]

MS theme song /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[aestival]

Wonderful -- yet again, Microsoft has arrived just in the nick of time to save us from the past. Storage has surpassed most requirements for lossy storage of still photos, so why invent a new format? JPEG is fine as a lossy format, and there are plenty of lossless formats around. Wireless communication speeds are also rapidly making lossy formats increasingly unnecessary. The amount of work expended supporting any new lossy format will massively outstrip the benefits.
Sounds like another Microsoft make-work project, sort of like the IT beasts created mostly to support Windoze. Apparently Microsoft's definition of innovation is designing for a better yesterday.

[mdawson]

Despite the promise of JPEG XRs open status, Microsoft does nothing that does not they do not believe will ultimately be a inroad to domination and excessive profit. As another poster mentioned, Microsoft simply has to sit on the sidelines like a trapdoor spider waiting until there is enough market penetration of the format to pounce on an unsuspecting public. Given that the Borg (Microsoft) are involved I think that the story of the scorpion and the fox is quite apt.
Microsoft has proven over the course of their existence that they cannot be trusted to do anything that does not benefit the company and only the company. I find the position of the Joint Photographers Expert Group to be consistent with that of those few less than intelligent persons, or those with a less-than-noble vested interest in allowing the status quo, that continue to support a certain politician regardless of how much he screws up even when his core contingency no longer favors him.
Nothing coming out of Redmond should ever be adopted by a standards committee, period. JPEG is opening the door for millions of people to be royally extorted in the future.

[alansky]

Piss on Microsoft and their new "standard." Whatever it is they're up to, I guarantee it has nothing to do with making things easier or better for the consumer.

[mdawson]

Microsoft aside, the need for compressed file formats will be around for quite some time. The points you bring forth are true for desktops connected to the Internet via broadband, but that is one instance. With the growing number of handheld devices holding music, photos and video, something has to be in place to get as much content as possible into limited storage capacity, preferably with little to no (perceivable) loss of quality. Even the top-of-the-line hard drive-based 80GB iPod is of limited capacity in the Content Age.
Place uncompressed music on an 80GB iPod at an average of 10MB per song and suddenly you can only store about 8000 songs are so. While that is more than enough for a great many people, most people do not buy the top-of-the-line highest capacity iPod. Also, the iPods buffer would always be quickly exhausted requiring the hard drive to refill it more often and therefore quickly diminish battery life. Laptops, which are very popular amongst the younger computer users that are more likely to have more content, are also limited in terms of storage. While 2.5-inch hard drives are available in capacities up to 250 GB, most laptops sold today have anywhere from 60 to 120 GB of hard drive storage and unlike an iPod that space is occupied by more than just entertainment content.
Our need for more storage capacity tends to scale with what is available at reasonable cost. Twenty years ago a 20 MB hard drive was considered to be near infinite storage in the minds of those few of us with home computers. We now have key-sized flash drives that have substantially more capacity than those old hard drives. So until the capacity of the average storage device used in handheld devices greatly exceeds the capacity required by the average user, there will always be a need for data compression.

[nelson92]

Quote:

---

What we need WAY more is a single RAW file format that all cameras write to. Now that would be a useful standard that I could get behind! DNG or some other file format, doesn't matter. Just give us one and get rid of this proprietary nonsense camera makers try to lock us into

---

Couldn't agree more. As for MS and their "promise", wouldn't trust Redmond as far as I could spit.