Better JPEG standard due in 2009
Alfred Molon
......
JPEG uses 8-bit encoding that provides 256 gradations, but JPEG XR can
use 16 bits or more for finer distinctions and more editing flexibility.
......
Another advantage of JPEG XR is that it uses a more efficient
compression algorithm that provides either twice the image quality as
JPEG at the same file size, or half the file size for the same quality,
according to Microsoft. And unlike JPEG, setting JPEG XR to record at
its highest quality level loses no information to compression artifacts.
......
But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Don Stauffer
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10152810-39.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
>
> ......
> JPEG uses 8-bit encoding that provides 256 gradations, but JPEG XR can
> use 16 bits or more for finer distinctions and more editing flexibility.
> ......
> Another advantage of JPEG XR is that it uses a more efficient
> compression algorithm that provides either twice the image quality as
> JPEG at the same file size, or half the file size for the same quality,
> according to Microsoft. And unlike JPEG, setting JPEG XR to record at
> its highest quality level loses no information to compression artifacts.
> ......
>
> But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
I agree. I don't know whether jpeg 2000 was better than the older jpeg
or not, but it sure didn't catch on.
Sheila
For people who have digital photos from 1999 that could be a very large
conversion. I wonder if there would be an easy conversion program
available.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
ray
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10152810-39.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
>
> ......
> JPEG uses 8-bit encoding that provides 256 gradations, but JPEG XR can
> use 16 bits or more for finer distinctions and more editing flexibility.
> ......
> Another advantage of JPEG XR is that it uses a more efficient
> compression algorithm that provides either twice the image quality as
> JPEG at the same file size, or half the file size for the same quality,
> according to Microsoft. And unlike JPEG, setting JPEG XR to record at
> its highest quality level loses no information to compression artifacts.
> ......
>
> But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
I've been wondering what ever happened to JPEG2K - it seemed to have a
lot of promise.
J. Clarke
It's a formally released standard supported by the major photo
editors. Microsoft is pushing JPEG XR though so that's likely going
to become the defacto standard, and so far their licensing precludes
its inclusion in anything open source until the algorithms get
clean-room reverse engineered.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
ray
I see. So it's really nothing more than another MS end-run around
standards.
Chris H
<alfred...@yahoo.com> writes
>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10152810-39.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
>
>......
>JPEG uses 8-bit encoding that provides 256 gradations, but JPEG XR can
>use 16 bits or more for finer distinctions and more editing flexibility.
>......
>Another advantage of JPEG XR is that it uses a more efficient
>compression algorithm that provides either twice the image quality as
>JPEG at the same file size, or half the file size for the same quality,
>according to Microsoft. And unlike JPEG, setting JPEG XR to record at
>its highest quality level loses no information to compression artifacts.
>......
>
>But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
It will because MS will put it in all their SW and P&S cameras will use
it
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Dave Cohen
What would be the advantage of converting an existing jpeg.
Dave Cohen
HEMI-Powered
...
>>> But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace
>>> JPEG.
>>
>> I've been wondering what ever happened to JPEG2K - it seemed to
>> have a lot of promise.
>
> It's a formally released standard supported by the major photo
> editors. Microsoft is pushing JPEG XR though so that's likely
> going to become the defacto standard, and so far their licensing
> precludes its inclusion in anything open source until the
> algorithms get clean-room reverse engineered.
>
Are you saying that everyone will now be held hostage by Redmond
instead of the clay brick people? I'm a free market capitalist but
this seems like obvious monopoly abuse to me. I mean, the original
idea behind JPEG was to be a STANDARD that software and hardware
manufacturers would adhere to which is good for them and good for
users, and NOT a major software developer hijacking an emerging
better standard so as to make a quick buck.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
ray
> On 6 Feb 2009 18:24:06 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>I see. So it's really nothing more than another MS end-run around
>>standards.
>
> Don't we have enough 'Standards' already?
>
> Gary
Exactly. But MS keeps doing these end runs - and the herds follow.
Charles
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.23f649a17...@news.supernews.com...
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10152810-39.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
>
> ......
> JPEG uses 8-bit encoding that provides 256 gradations, but JPEG XR can
> use 16 bits or more for finer distinctions and more editing flexibility.
> ......
> Another advantage of JPEG XR is that it uses a more efficient
> compression algorithm that provides either twice the image quality as
> JPEG at the same file size, or half the file size for the same quality,
> according to Microsoft. And unlike JPEG, setting JPEG XR to record at
> its highest quality level loses no information to compression artifacts.
> ......
>
> But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
Chuck Westfall, the Canon guy, has made some comments that imply JPEG-XR
could improve burst performance over the RAW format. There is some support
for this notion. It seems that only integer math is needed and that the
computations are basically simple and fast. Given that 16 bits are
supported, the better dynamic range and fast compression/processing could
lead to faster (better burst) cameras. One source said that JPEG-XR photos
should look as good as RAW photos.
RAW is hardly dead yet, but some think that it could be in a few years.
Interesting, in any case.
John McWilliams
>> But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
>
> Chuck Westfall, the Canon guy, has made some comments that imply JPEG-XR
> could improve burst performance over the RAW format. There is some support
> for this notion. It seems that only integer math is needed and that the
> computations are basically simple and fast. Given that 16 bits are
> supported, the better dynamic range and fast compression/processing could
> lead to faster (better burst) cameras. One source said that JPEG-XR photos
> should look as good as RAW photos.
>
> RAW is hardly dead yet, but some think that it could be in a few years.
How so? RAW will still be happening, so to speak, as it's the most basic
capture from the wafer. I believe that if the new JPEG holds up its
promise, though, the advantages of shooting RAW will be lessened somewhat.
--
john mcwilliams
Charles
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gmic6o$gig$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Charles wrote:
>
>>> But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
>>
>> Chuck Westfall, the Canon guy, has made some comments that imply JPEG-XR
>> could improve burst performance over the RAW format. There is some
>> support for this notion. It seems that only integer math is needed and
>> that the computations are basically simple and fast. Given that 16 bits
>> are supported, the better dynamic range and fast compression/processing
>> could lead to faster (better burst) cameras. One source said that
>> JPEG-XR photos should look as good as RAW photos.
>>
>> RAW is hardly dead yet, but some think that it could be in a few years.
>
>> I believe that if the new JPEG holds up its promise, though, the
>> advantages of shooting RAW will be lessened somewhat.
That's how I see it.
Sheila
There wouldn't be if the existing jpeg would continue to be supported, I
was thinking of a conversion if JPER XR would become the real standard
and regular JPEG discontinued.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
Ofnuts
> In message <MPG.23f649a17...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10152810-39.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
>>
>> ......
>> JPEG uses 8-bit encoding that provides 256 gradations, but JPEG XR can
>> use 16 bits or more for finer distinctions and more editing flexibility.
>> ......
>> Another advantage of JPEG XR is that it uses a more efficient
>> compression algorithm that provides either twice the image quality as
>> JPEG at the same file size, or half the file size for the same quality,
>> according to Microsoft. And unlike JPEG, setting JPEG XR to record at
>> its highest quality level loses no information to compression artifacts.
>> ......
>>
>> But personally I have my doubts that JPEG XR will displace JPEG.
>
> It will because MS will put it in all their SW and P&S cameras will use it
Hmmm. Windows-based P&S cameras... and the rise of the Blue Photo of
Death:-)
--
Bertrand