The end of the road for JPEG?

Microsoft aims to replace the JPEG standard with its HD format. They claim the HD format does less damage to images when they're compressed so they're higher quality at half the size of JPEG.

Here's a short article:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...rce=rss_news50

hmmm...first I've heard of this. thanks for the link.

Trust Microsoft to try and change the world - AGAIN! Thanks for the info and the link.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canuck935

they're compressed so they're higher quality at half the size of JPEG....

---

Yeah, interesting article. I do think their logic is pretty flawed, though. especially if the main selling point of then new format is file size.

I hardly see storage space as a factor anymore, either on a hard drive, media card, or disc...

Anyone have a whitepaper link on this. I hate trying to interpret at news article....usually very deceptive.

I read some stuff that jpeg2000 was superior to this HD format.

Technical superiority doesn't matter - marketing does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lidarman

Anyone have a whitepaper link on this. I hate trying to interpret at news article....usually very deceptive.

I read some stuff that jpeg2000 was superior to this HD format.

---

They have a download with specifications here:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx

It's a package of stuff, but it includes a 43 page document "HDPhoto_Feature_Spec_1.0"
which at a glance appears to be exactly what you're looking for.

Is it another attempt of Microsoft to get control? I did heard a couple of years ago that they were working on a new standard. I thought since I haven’t heard anything it had died. There are already so many good standards out there that support 16 bit colour and more. Why do we need another one? I don’t think, as other have said, that file size is as important as it once was. I might have something to do with the “Digital Rights” strategy.

Everything Microsoft does is aimed squarely at controlling what we can do and how things are used.

I, for one, will refuse to buy any camera that uses this format.

I have no gripes with Microsoft and feel they are just a powerful,successful company that people love to hate. I do not think it will do much to get jpeg out of the mainstream format. wma audio files from Microsoft were introduced several years ago. They are smaller than Mp3's and just as good quality or better, but it never wound up replacing mp3. Jpeg is too embedded into the standard format of most major applications and will not be ousted anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmartWombat

Technical superiority doesn't matter - marketing does.

---

How true... Also funny how a Microsoft comes out with a product that's larger in memory size than an industry standard that has worked well for so many people for so many years... I haven't read the article yet, but I don't see the advantage of a file that's like a jpeg only larger. The advantage of a jpeg is that it's smaller and faster. For a lot of situations, it works just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gahspidy

I have no gripes with Microsoft and feel they are just a powerful,successful company that people love to hate. I do not think it will do much to get jpeg out of the mainstream format. wma audio files from Microsoft were introduced several years ago. They are smaller than Mp3's and just as good quality or better, but it never wound up replacing mp3. Jpeg is too embedded into the standard format of most major applications and will not be ousted anytime soon.

---

Exactly gary. I would have thought jpeg2000 would be the standard right now. I never use it because compatibility. I mean I can't upload it to most printing sites, or kiosks. Portability is paramount.

When I want a good quality, I shoot raw and save in Photoshop formats to retail the layering--otherwise, I dumb it down to JPEG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

How true... Also funny how a Microsoft comes out with a product that's larger in memory size than an industry standard that has worked well for so many people for so many years... I haven't read the article yet, but I don't see the advantage of a file that's like a jpeg only larger. The advantage of a jpeg is that it's smaller and faster. For a lot of situations, it works just fine.

---

Steve, it is supposed to be nearly half the size of Jpeg, and yield better quality with less damage to the file. Better compression algorithms.Also capable of lossless format, like the Jpeg 2000. It may very well be a superior format, and I would gather it is if Adobe is willing to provide some support for it. I just don't think Jpeg is going to get canned very quickly. Eventually, something will replace it, but not so fast.

HD is just a rename WMA file, says it right on MS web site. That file format has been around years.