Comments on: Microsoft vs. JPEG

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:55:00 +0000

This comment has been removed because it linked to malicious content. Learn more.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:43:00 +0000

shadow- sounds like you really are missing something if you’re describing raw in the same terms as tiff. Raw really means RAW-information that has to be processed. You can’t simply send a raw file to someone and expect them to read it without a decoder so the advantage of sending ‘better’ raw data over smaller file size. There’s not a real comparison there.

By: Shadow

Shadow — Wed, 31 May 2006 15:05:00 +0000

Caught T. Hawks comment over on a link from CNet and had to come over, sounded completely brain dead at first , so I figured I was missing something when he was talking about JPG and the new format replacing RAW. Turns out to just be point of view. RAW format is uncompressed, and you lose no quality at all, but, it’s far to large to be used in most data related venues, once you get to the point where you want to send that 5 meg RAW image somewhere in email or publish it on the web, you’re going to need to start looking at how you can bring that file size down to a more managable level while losing as little as possible. JPG might bring a 5 meg uncompressed TIFF/RAW file down to say 128k without to much loss (this is wildly speculative), MS is saying they can do the same quality or better at 64k. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 26 May 2006 12:51:00 +0000

Yea probably include some DRM, which isnt such a bad thing. It would allow companies to protect images they own. And would help open up an image market.

By: mikem

mikem — Fri, 26 May 2006 11:38:00 +0000

Why is this better than the jp2 (jpeg2000) file format? Besides the hype that is?

Sounds like warmed over technology to me. Probably MS will just put more DRM into it.

By: Jason Cross

Jason Cross — Fri, 26 May 2006 11:08:00 +0000

Actually, it was a third-party device maker that said they can't see supporting it before 2008 (a cell phone maker, if I'm not mistaken - they update chipsets on a long schedule). Microsoft will likely have support when Vista launches. But the real key is if Adobe will support it. If they do, it's a viable format. If not, they're sunk.

I think having better quality in less size is important, even for pros. Note that the new format supports a lossless mode, and includes support for high dynamic range images. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you could use a LOSSLESS compressed HDR format in 1/4 the size of your RAW. Would you?

Storage space isn't the issue. You're right - that's growing exponentially. The issue is transfer speed, which affects shot speed. If you could shoot twice as fast, or take bursts of up to four times as many photos in burst mode, would that be worth it?

I think so.

It's a technology worth wathcing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 May 2006 23:40:00 +0000

I think the reporters mix JPEG and JPEG2000 in an usual misleading way. Compared to JPEG, WindowsMediaPhoto may be smaller in size, but definitely not compared to JPEG2000 since JPEG2000 uses the L.O.D. wavelet algorithms that WindowsMediaPhoto directly compares to.

It reminds me Microsoft made an acquisition of a small JPEG2000-related startup back in 2004 or so. Can’t remember the name. I wouldn’t be surprised that those guys are behind this move.

By: Gary Crabbe

Gary Crabbe — Thu, 25 May 2006 19:49:00 +0000

(Wi)ndows (M)edia (P)hoto(s).

WiMPs.

Then, in 24 months, (once all the bugs are worked out) we'll get "WiMPs 2.0; Bigger, Badder, WiMP-ier".

By: L.A. Price

L.A. Price — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:11:00 +0000

I seriously doubt that even Microsoft can push a new and proprietary image format into wide acceptance. Especially with the proliferation of devices that have media codecs built in to hardware, all those phones and webpads and set-tops have .jpg built in. Even if MS were to put all their muscle into it, this format would not be a serious contender for at least 3 years.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 25 May 2006 12:25:00 +0000

I don’t think Microsoft intends on replacing RAW with this. RAW formats will always be camera-centric, whereas formats like JPEG or this new Microsoft one aim to be usable in all different environments.

It’s too bad all cameras can’t shoot in RAW mode. Those who know the benefits of shooting in RAW mode will continue to use RAW mode. Those that don’t, either out of lack of necessity, lack of availability or lack of knowledge probably don’t need it. It’s the old, “if you know what it is, you know enough in how to use it” adage.