If it is up to Microsoft, the omnipresent JPEG image format will be replaced by Windows Media Photo. The software maker detailed the new image format Wednesday at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference here. Windows Media Photo will be supported in Windows Vista and also be made available for Windows XP, Bill Crow, program manager for Windows Media Photo said in a presentation.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-06
So is C++. So is GIF. So is MP3. So is gzip. JPEG being old is not an argument against it.
My point wasn't that old = bad. My point was that technology tends to evolve and get better over time.
Yes, in fact I would assume that, since the quality of an image is completely subjective and dependant on the eyes viewing it - especially with lossy formats. You could write a major about "the interpreted quality of an image".
No, image quality isn't entirely subjective. It's quite possible to take decompressed bits from codec A and decompressed bits from codec B -- and compare those bits to the original uncompressed image. Yes, there are a wide number of factors for comparison. But not all of those factors are subjective.
How would you say WMA compares to MP3? I wouldn't dare say a word about it. But this article does and may emphasize my bold claim that this is in fact marketing bogus:
WMA is provably better than MP3 -- at least, for average to lower bit-depths.
Member since:2005-07-26
WMA is provably better than MP3 -- at least, for average to lower bit-depths.
I hear your point and I agree that there are provable differences. But I would expect MS to be relying on the un-provable/subjective part to sustain their claims. And I think that there will be an "-- at least, for..." in the final conclusion of this format as well as the WMA. Twice as good as JPEG is too good.
Member since:2005-10-24
Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe it isn't that the JPEG algorithm is "so bad". Maybe WMPhoto is simply technologically superior. After all, JPEG is pretty damned old.
So is GIF.
PNG is better.
So is MP3.
Vorbis is better.
So is gzip.
bzip2 is better.
So is C++.
There's a hole with no bottom.
Edited 2006-05-25 22:24
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-05-01
Member since:
2005-07-26
Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe it isn't that the JPEG algorithm is "so bad". Maybe WMPhoto is simply technologically superior. After all, JPEG is pretty damned old.
So is C++. So is GIF. So is MP3. So is gzip. JPEG being old is not an argument against it.
>I say no way.
Based on what? Pure conjecture? And you think that MS would have made such claims knowing that it would be readily possible to prove/disprove their claims?
Yes, in fact I would assume that, since the quality of an image is completely subjective and dependant on the eyes viewing it - especially with lossy formats. You could write a major about "the interpreted quality of an image".
How would you say WMA compares to MP3? I wouldn't dare say a word about it. But this article does and may emphasize my bold claim that this is in fact marketing bogus:
http://ekei.com/audio/