Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Main Community Forum
 

Main Community Forum General Modeling & Photography Forum
Adult posts prohibited!>>Please Read Our GUIDELINES before posting!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-29-2007, 06:06 PM   #1 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
lsc1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member GG#: 36482
Location: Charleston
Posts: 527
Comments: 2

lsc1 is offline IP: 72.150.198.134
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Interesting article...I think I know what sentiment here will be but hey, I could be wrong.

http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-6153730.html

An excerpt

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.

What do you guys think???
__________________
Cheers,
LSC


"The girlshapedlovedrug messes with my mind." Gomez (the band)
  View Public Profile Send a private message to lsc1 Find More Posts by lsc1
Last edited by lsc1; 01-29-2007 at 08:46 PM..
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-29-2007, 10:18 PM   #2 (permalink)
Pro Shooter

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,078
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 67.49.32.15
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

interesting they're calling it "HD" even though it doesn't stand for High-Definition. While reading the article, I naturally thought HD stood for Hi-Def so, when the article spoke about things like HD Photo keeps more detail in the highlights (over JPGs), I was thinking that doesn't sound right. I've shot a lot of HD video and highlights can be a problem. To make HD video look really good you have to light it really good. But then I read how the HD in HD Photo has nothing to do with Hi-Def. Sounds like as much R&D has gone into the marketing as it has the actual product.
__________________
I'm not an art critic but I think I know a good picture when I see one.


My NSFW blog
: http://prettygirlshooter.blogspot.com
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jimmyd Visit jimmyd's homepage! Find More Posts by jimmyd
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-29-2007, 10:37 PM   #3 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
lsc1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member GG#: 36482
Location: Charleston
Posts: 527
Comments: 2

lsc1 is offline IP: 65.0.246.204
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Hard to imagine MS doing anything as misleading as that isn't it?
__________________
Cheers,
LSC


"The girlshapedlovedrug messes with my mind." Gomez (the band)
  View Public Profile Send a private message to lsc1 Find More Posts by lsc1
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-30-2007, 08:16 AM   #4 (permalink)
Lifetime Amateur

 
jford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35246
Location: Indiana, PA
Posts: 2,724
Comments: 7

jford is offline IP: 144.80.193.138
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Some of it is hype, but the JPEG 8 bit per color dynamic range limitation is real, and will eventually force a replacement. But then again, some of the programs I use most often are written in FORTRAN IV.
__________________
"Keeping shooting will do more for the excellence of your photography than most any camera will!" JimmyD, PGS Extraordinaire.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jford Visit jford's homepage! Find More Posts by jford
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-30-2007, 10:25 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
RHWeiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member GG#: 37106
Location: Surrey, BC, Canada
Posts: 717
Comments: 29
My Mood:

RHWeiner is offline IP: 66.183.218.26
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

If what you say (or rather quote) is true then I'm interested. But this will only work if the majority pick up on it and quickly so. I'm not going to generate a file of this type if people and browsers can't read it.

JPEG2000 was brought up as a example but how many times have you come across one of these?
__________________
"Beauty is more than skin deep"
  View Public Profile Send a private message to RHWeiner Visit RHWeiner's homepage! Find More Posts by RHWeiner
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-30-2007, 11:21 AM   #6 (permalink)
Member

 
roastdawgg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Member GG#: 51008
Location: Fairfax
Posts: 59
Comments: 0
Send a message via AIM to roastdawgg

roastdawgg is offline IP: 134.205.44.134
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I personally do not see HD Photos overtaking JPG. They may have their niche applications but over all, there is no incentive to switch to this new format. For one, JPG algorithms already take into account that the human eye has limitations when it comes to seeing very subtle differences in shades (this is one of the core tennants of how JPG works). So by allowing even more subtle changes in color you are doing what? Increasing file size? You aren't going to be able to see much if any difference. JPG has been the defacto standard for so long, its an institution.

MP3's and JPG's are here for a long time. I know this article isn't about MP3 but like JPG it is a quintescential format that has proven itself time and time again. But that's just my two cents.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to roastdawgg Visit roastdawgg's homepage! Find More Posts by roastdawgg
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-30-2007, 02:56 PM   #7 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Member GG#: 37304
Location: Uehling
Posts: 318
Comments: 0
Send a message via Yahoo to trwphoto

trwphoto is offline IP: 12.108.210.247
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Where would you use It? Most puters only show 72 dpi and I don't know of many labs that will very soon leave jpg for it.

Ofcourse I was very skeptical of digital photography at first. Figured it would take another 10 years to catch on and be good enuf to use professionally.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to trwphoto Visit trwphoto's homepage! Find More Posts by trwphoto
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-30-2007, 04:38 PM   #8 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
lsc1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member GG#: 36482
Location: Charleston
Posts: 527
Comments: 2

lsc1 is offline IP: 72.150.198.134
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by trwphoto View Post
Where would you use It? Most puters only show 72 dpi and I don't know of many labs that will very soon leave jpg for it.

Well, that's the challenge for microsoft isn't it?! Getting labs to use it won't be a problem if everyone upstream (cameras, photo editing software, etc) is using it. Getting the camera makers to integrate is where the money is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roastdawgg View Post
I personally do not see HD Photos overtaking JPG. They may have their niche applications but over all, there is no incentive to switch to this new format.
• 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.

For one, JPG algorithms already take into account that the human eye has limitations when it comes to seeing very subtle differences in shades (this is one of the core tennants of how JPG works). So by allowing even more subtle changes in color you are doing what? Increasing file size? You aren't going to be able to see much if any difference.

Hasn't stopped the megapixel race even though most of the racers never print above 8 X 10!
JPG has been the defacto standard for so long, its an institution.

MP3's and JPG's are here for a long time. I know this article isn't about MP3 but like JPG it is a quintescential format that has proven itself time and time again. But that's just my two cents.

I agree, it will be a major challenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RHWeiner View Post
If what you say (or rather quote) is true then I'm interested. But this will only work if the majority pick up on it and quickly so. I'm not going to generate a file of this type if people and browsers can't read it.

If Windows/Vista builds it, they will come .

JPEG2000 was brought up as a example but how many times have you come across one of these?
Umm, never. Which is why this will be a huge challenge.
I'm neither a Microsoft lover nor a hater. They are in the business to make a lot of money and they do. I just don't get how changing the standard image format from JPEG to HD Photo while not enforcing their source code rights will make MS any money. But, you can bet it will or they wouldn't be working on it.

Soooo, why do they want to change the imaging standard format??
__________________
Cheers,
LSC


"The girlshapedlovedrug messes with my mind." Gomez (the band)
  View Public Profile Send a private message to lsc1 Find More Posts by lsc1
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-30-2007, 05:09 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
RobArtLyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member GG#: 55042
Location: Alexandria
Posts: 411
Comments: 0
My Mood:

RobArtLyn is offline IP: 141.156.187.35
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsc1 View Post
Soooo, why do they want to change the imaging standard format?
Because someone there has the idea that they can do it better, and the virtual monopoly that MS has on desktop operating systems gives them an opportunity to push it out to the world. There is no guarantee that the world will adopt it.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to RobArtLyn Find More Posts by RobArtLyn
 
Re: The Death of JPEG!
Old 01-30-2007, 08:00 PM   #10 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Member GG#: 55886
Location: Mount Pleasant
Posts: 7
Comments: 0

dereckcurry is offline IP: 68.58.223.22
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsc1 View Post
I'm neither a Microsoft lover nor a hater. They are in the business to make a lot of money and they do. I just don't get how changing the standard image format from JPEG to HD Photo while not enforcing their source code rights will make MS any money. But, you can bet it will or they wouldn't be working on it.

Soooo, why do they want to change the imaging standard format??

Okay, I don't have the whole story on this one, but in the past the algorithms to compress images have been patented. The patent holder will then offer a license to those who want to implement the algorithm for viewing or creating the image file.

In this case, the article states that Microsoft is treating the patents they have obtained for this particular image technology as part of the Microsoft Open Specifications Promise, where they promise not to go after people for patent infringement.

However, after visiting the Microsoft Open Specifications Promise website, I didn't see this new image format listed as one of the technologies they are promising to keep open.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

There is a virtual hard disk image specification listed by Microsoft, but that is something different than the article mentions, and it's possible that the author was confused by this.

So until Microsoft actual announces this new format is part of the promise, I'm going to assume that they intend to license the technology to those who are willing to pay to implement it.

But I do hope that they will indeed release this new image technology as an Open Specification.
  View Public Profile Visit dereckcurry's homepage! Find More Posts by dereckcurry
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photoshop experts, why can't I save to jpeg? Hoosier_Daddy Digital Darkroom 6 12-30-2005 04:10 PM
RAW vs JPEG The_Glamour_Spot Tech Talk Forum 7 03-27-2005 12:19 PM
Can someone please explain Raw to JPEG for me.... LePhoto Tech Talk Forum 2 07-24-2004 06:00 PM
jpeg compression (save, save as) question val Tech Talk Forum 6 05-26-2004 05:46 PM
JPEG in Netscape BMP in Explorer G_Roux Tech Talk Forum 6 04-27-2004 04:48 AM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93