Submitted by 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.
Seriously, not, wanted.
P N G
PNG can’t compare to JPEG, let alone Windows Media Photo, for image compression where some loss is acceptable.
As it happens, I don’t really care. I am absolutely sick of proprietary media formats popping up anywhere… Not to sound like a FOSS fanatic or anything, but if a file format of some kind is going to enter widespread use, it should be *required* to be an open standard. A vendor forcing people to use their application only on their platform only to view a commonly used file is being unfair to other companies, unfair to the market, and unfair to users, including its own customers.
MS provides the specification for the image format. What more do you need?
Guarantees that:
The freely available specs (if they ever emerged) would remain completely open.
The specs are complete are workable.
The specs won’t be altered and manipulated to advance the interests of Microsoft while at the same time disadvantaging their competitors.
Microsoft won’t abuse their monopoly position to force their file format onto groups and companies who would not adopt it by choice.
There’s a start.
“MS provides the specification for the image format. What more do you need?”
Any related patents owned by Microsoft (and anyone else) transfered to a non-profit standards organization that we can all trust.
The good side of patents is that they [should] describe the invention in detail, the bad is that you can’t implement any of those details for as long as the patent is valid, unless you license it, at whatever price the patent-holder asks. This is a very real threat to non-commercial operating systems.
MS provides a specification for MS Word, also, but there are severe limitations on whaty one can actually DO with the information they provide.
Ummm… Right. Sorry, that was me getting carried away and commenting without reading the article.
(FWIW I do think we have something to be annoyed about concerning the proliferation of RealMedia videos, but that is another matter.
PNG can’t compare to JPEG, let alone Windows Media Photo, for image compression where some loss is acceptable.
Really??? Based on what? I’m using a lot of PNG for my drawings. It has proven as better (quality-size wise) than JPEG for me and it has Alpha channel which is seriously lacking in JPEG.
The only problem I had so far is Windows support where you need thrird party software to display it as it should be. All other OSes handle PNG natively.
Wouldn’t say anything if you would mention JPEG2000 (this one is much better), but that one is still not out.
Based on photographs. Drawings are certainly going to compress better using PNG, especially PNG-8, because JPEG optimizes on gradients. PNG-8 compresses even better than GIF in a lot of cases. JPEG at its highest quality setting compresses to roughly 60 percent (of the file size) of non-interlaced PNG-24.
Personally, I prefer using PNG for everything, mainly because I am familiar with the algorithms used and the zlib codebase, but also because I like using the alpha channel from time to time and I don’t like visual artifacts.
Based on photographs
Ok. Tested and you’re right. As I said I do a lot of drawings, no photographs.
Yes, size of JPEG on photo is more acceptable while not losing quality, compltely different results on drawings. But just as you said, it won’t stop me to ignore it in the future as I did it in the past. PNG is still the that rocks mothers ass.
Read my lips:
JPEG2000
This is the new version of JPEG that can compress at 1:20 with the same quality as the standard JPEG at 1:5. There were a lot of patent worries, but most of these have been fixed. It’s supported natively in Mac OS X and there is a free plugin for Firefox here: http://www.morgan-multimedia.com/JPEG2000/mozilla_plugin.htm
There is also talk of incorporating it into Firefox 2.0: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla2:ImageLib#JPEG2000
It offers both lossy and lossless compression, and because it’s based on Wavelet technology, the compression artifacts aren’t as noticeable as with standard JPEG.
All in all, it’s a pity no-one’s incorporated it, particularly in digital cameras.
Perhaps this move, on the part of Microsoft, will encourage projects like FF to encorporate JPEG200.
Interesting,
MSs new closed format alledges to be about twice as good as the original JPEG standard. Comparing that to the fact that it is well established that JPEG2000 can compress about 4 times better than the original JPEG with actually better image quality, and the fact that it can be openly implemented on any system, then I’m sure to bet my money on JPEG2000.
So the international JPEG2000 ISO standard can provide today much better compression and quality compared to what Microsoft is alledging to be able to provide with their own closed proprietary WMP (Windows Media Photo) image format.
Links:
http://www.jpeg2000info.com/
http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000/
…and if we want video, then we have MPEG4 (ISO/IEC 14496), also greatly improved upon over MPEG2 and still an open ISO standard!
Furthermore, we have H.264, the MPEG-4 Part 10, or AVC (Advanced Video Coding).
And the previously mentioned MS proposed format beating JPEG2000 open standard of today is also known as ISO/IEC 15444.
Further reading:
MPEG4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG4
MPEG4 & MPEG7: http://www.m4if.org/resources/mpeg4userfaq.php
H264: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
JPEG2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
extra: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/mpeg4/
YAPEPCMFTEVLIALOI
Yet Another Patent Encumbered Proprietary Closed Microsoft Format To Ensure Vendor Lock-In And Lack Of Interoperability.
*Sigh*
you need windows vista and internet explorer to see pictures on this website warnings
Oh boy oh boy… Well, that’ll solve the problems with high load times due to bloated pages
i hope that all the annoying adds only works with MSIE
Anyone who criticises this move is a terrorist.
Thank god MS are ready to act again for the interests of consumers who are constantly baffled by choice.
Let me guess if your OS X user or Linux user need to upgrade to Windows… and if u have XP or below you need to upgrade as well… what is wrong with JPG? We really do not need another image format.
No, because on the Get Ready For Vista page, you cannot Download and run the .msi
Using their own screwed up formats, Microsoft has, by default, lost OS X and Linux users from upgrading to Vista. There is simply no way to check if their machines can run it.
As for a replacement for jpg ? Choke my chicken Microsoft, why should I buy in to your shitty format, when there is a STANDARD one that the whole world uses ?
This is one more reason for you all to stand up and shout, at the top of your voices… “f–k You, Microsoft”
“We can do it in half the size of a JPEG file.”
What kind of crap is that? There is no comparison between lossy formats. Probably you get a half-the-size image, but it will definately be missing something that the double-sized JPEG did in fact include. What am I missing here? Are JPEGs suddenly including non-image data that makes the twice as huge?
And how can the JPEG algorithm be *so* bad that it’s beatable by a factor 2?
I say no way. Marketing bogus.
What am I missing here?
What’s to miss? They’re claiming that they’re half the size of the JPEG with better quality.
And how can the JPEG algorithm be *so* bad that it’s beatable by a factor 2?
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.
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?
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/
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.
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.
but WMA is not agreed upon by multiple entities, only Microsoft. Why not use AAC [part of the mpeg-4 spec]. …. much more ‘open’ that microsoft and no one entity has full control.
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
Vorbis is better? Please state how.
Don’t say because it’s Free, that doesn’t make it better.
//Vorbis is better? Please state how. //
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Best_Compressed_Audio_For…
“As a result of these tests, this document assumes that Ogg Vorbis is the best so-far in audio compression, based on tests listed.”
http://www.teqnilogik.com/tutorials/audio_formats.htm
“WMA is Microsoft’s answer to MP3. Exclusive to the Windows platform, WMA offers better sounding files at lower bit rates but currently WMA is not the best audio format. Better tuned MP3 encoders, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, and MusePack all beat WMA’s quality at 128kbps and above.”
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=116947
“Depends on the context
Best for screwing over the customer:
WMA/V w/ Napster’s DRM system
Best for interopability and best overall:
MPEG Layer 3 (MP3)
Best for being a liberal
Ogg Vorbis
Best for preserving quality
FLAC”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ogg+Vorbis
“Uses various technologies to create audioquality comparable with mp3PRO at low bitrates and MP3 at high bitrates. Encodes and decodes fast. Available on many platforms. Opensource. Beats MP3 and WMA fair and square in terms of sound quality.”
Nice parent post! +1 (Click above to see parent) “…AAC, Ogg Vorbis, and MusePack all beat WMA’s quality at 128kbps and above.“.
Edited 2006-05-26 08:45
Vorbis is better? Please state how.
Vorbis consistently fares better than MP3 in double-blind listening tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Listening_tests
Pretty much any of the newer formats (Ogg Vorbis, WMA, AAC etc) is better than MP3 when it comes to fidelity (at the same bitrate). The only good reason to use MP3 is compatibility.
The tests seem to state that vorbis can indeed be better!
Here is the most comprehensive listening test I seen…
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465
That’s cool. I have seen reports saying the same, but nobody tests against the actual fraunhoffer encoder which beats lame completely in terms of sound quality.
I wish I could see comparisons of WMA, Fraunhoffer MP3enc and vorbis.
I would have to disagree. FN encoder was better but now lame is better. See here…
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
So is C++. So is GIF. So is MP3. So is gzip. JPEG being old is not an argument against it.
Java, PNG, OGG, BZip2?
“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?”
The ease of disproving an inaccurate claim doesn’t seem to change their willingness to make one.
Didn’t Microsoft claim that WMA @ 64kbps was superior to MP3 @ 128kbps? From the listening tests I’ve seen, WMA Standard is actually worse than MP3 at the same bitrate, at least when a modern MP3 encoder is used. For example: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html
I see no reason to expect this MS claim to be any more accurate.
Even if it is superior to JPG, personally I think JPG is good enough, and the last thing the web needs is a proprietary image format controlled by Microsoft.
I see no reason to expect this MS claim to be any more accurate.
Then you have nothing to worry about. People can easily run comparisons to test MS’s assertions. That’s the way that technology works: People don’t simply accept marketing prognistications: They test them. I don’t know anybody who deploys technology simply because a vendor claims it’s better.
“Then you have nothing to worry about. People can easily run comparisons to test MS’s assertions. That’s the way that technology works: People don’t simply accept marketing prognistications: They test them. I don’t know anybody who deploys technology simply because a vendor claims it’s better.”
In my experience most people simply use the defaults and stick with whatever came with their PC. Look at how many people only use IE and never consider looking for a superior browser.
Another example is WMA, there are plenty of people who believe that it’s significantly superior to MP3. I’ve seen the use of WMA recommended on various forums because “you can fit on twice as many songs on your player”. Despite the listening test results (and how easily they could test it themselves), people accept Microsoft’s claims and assume that newer=better.
Yeah, I have tried so many file types, starting with MP3, including WMA, and over time only OGG Vorbis has provided the kind of excellent quality that I cannot differentiate from directly playing my CDs.
At similar compression ratios, MP3 contain a lot of artefacts, WMA contains many or several artefacts depending on what type of music you have compressed, and with OGG Vorbis of similar compression values I cannot tell the difference from the original. OGG / Vorbis is excellent quality.
For those who haven’t tried ogg I really recommend you start compressing and listening to music in that format.
Furthermore, as a bonus, you won’t be tied to one platform or a subset of systems in the future.
Links:
http://www.vorbis.com/
http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis
Edited 2006-05-26 08:32
Try latest aoTuV, even better than official version (1.1 is infact aoTuV beta 2 + some fixes)
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm
Downloads here
http://vorbis.audiohq.de/content/downloads.php
Some fair points. We might have to wait for some thorough evaluation of the relative performance of this new file format.
Don’t forget however, there are some open file formats which also claim succeed JPEG.
“And you think that MS would have made such claims knowing that it would be readily possible to prove/disprove their claims?”
I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to view the claims of Microsoft with skepticism.
yeah, like WMA … which is same quality of an MP3 at half the size … give me a break …
” And how can the JPEG algorithm be *so* bad that it’s beatable by a factor 2? ”
Is that what you said when MPEG4 came out as a replacement for MPEG2?
The JPEG format is quite old in computer years. There has been lots of developments in compression technology. I’m at all suprised that MS (or anyone) could do better than JPEG.
Just look at the improvements in audio codecs. MP3 is old technology now compared to what Real, WMA and Ogg have out.
Well, MPEG4 isn’t all that good.
In what way? MPEG-4 H.264 (AVC) is the only codec I’ve seen to handle HD video at decent file sizes. It’s only limitation that I can see is that is has more stringent hardware requirements.
Plain old DCT based JPEG was improved significantly by atleast 2x or more by JPEG 2000 using Wavelets. Ofcourse it was standardized by the same people as JPEG so no worries. You don’t hear about it much, I suspect its buried in several modern codecs, like Quicktime.
Before that it was Iterated Systems that had a much superior compression based on Fractals which at first seemed to have nothing in common with DCT or Wavelets. Today most students of these algorithms see them as a whole.
I did download the spec doc but under BeOS can only read raw text. Need to upgrade to Windows again.
If Microsoft puts the entire thing out in the open, code, algorithms, math with no restrictions or fees, I’d reckon it might have a chance with the way they shove things on the market. Otherwise NOT, NYET, NADA.
well, i actually pitty that nothing like this came up from open source comunity. jpeg is a very lausy algorithm and i fear this time Microsoft may succeed on this.. you know the drill, you own the desktop, you own everything…
Except, it will never succeed.
Take porno for example. Can you honestly see Joe Porno taking down his webites, converting all his jpgs into another format and then putting it all up again ?
Nah
BTW – they might own your desktop… but only you are to blame for that.
Every company wants to rule the world – whatever it costs and whatever is necessary to achieve this goal. The loosers are, as always, the people who loose choice. That will kill the whole industry over time.
Edited 2006-05-25 20:50
PNG doesn’t provide great picture compression. It does provide “decent” compression without loss of image quality, however.
JPEG is much better than PNG for lossy encoding. DJVU can supply better image quality at similar file sizes (not always) with text optimizations, in comparison to JPEG. JPEG2000 can also provide better image quality at similar file sizes, or smaller file sizes with similar quality in comparison to JPEG. Both DJVU and JPEG2000 formats are available in open-source projects.
Now go find me some JPEG2000 or DJVU files on the page of a commonly-used web site. Can’t? That’s because JPEG is good enough.
If MS really does manage to pull off 50% file size of JPEG combined with similar image quality, AND provided it as a published open standard without licensing encumbrance (and I know of a certain bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap!), then it would be interesting. Especially if it were to be supported on Windows by default.
Chances of all that happening? Slim to none. Especially in these days of massive flash ads and broadband Internet.
Chances of all that happening? Slim to none. Especially in these days of massive flash ads and broadband Internet.
Nah. I disagree. MS owns the Windows client. If WMPhoto becomes the default image storage format, it’s all over. The n00bs will all use it.
“Nah. I disagree. MS owns the Windows client. If WMPhoto becomes the default image storage format, it’s all over. The n00bs will all use it.”
Really? You think it’s that simple? Because they already have their own audio format, and yet the average windows users still needs Real Player and possibly iTunes to play all formats, hear all streams. How is this different?
Really? You think it’s that simple? Because they already have their own audio format, and yet the average windows users still needs Real Player and possibly iTunes to play all formats, hear all streams. How is this different?
Yeah, it IS that simple. MS has tremendous advantages in controlling Windows. The Windows client is the nexus for file-sharing. Until now, MS hasn’t really had a defacto default image format (other than JPEG). If MS starts suggesting a default of WMPhoto in all of its applications, then most users will simply use those defaults without questioning them.
‘Until now, MS hasn’t really had a defacto default image format (other than JPEG).’
I’d be careful to qualify that statement. BMP has been the default image format on Windows for a long time.
Not unless there is application and hardware support. I don’t see n00bs converting their whole photo collection just to save some space. Even if the camera client in Vista do so, I don’t see any advantage in converting a lossy format in another.
Now go find me some JPEG2000 or DJVU files on the page of a commonly-used web site. Can’t? That’s because JPEG is good enough.
Show me a browser with J2k or DJVU support.
JPEG 2000 is not widely supported in present software due to the perceived danger of software patents on the mathematics of the compression method
It’s probably a land grab – the article specifically mentions mobiles, handhelds, etc. Microsoft is trying to own the data streams of the future on whatever new devices we’ll be using to decode/encode them. Classic case perhaps of using your monopoly in one area to get a monopoly in another.
There’s nothing wrong with a successor to jpeg if there are sounds reasons for it. But only as an open standard. No licensing thanks Mr Gates. I think we all know exactly what you have in mind with that.
First of all, sorry my poor english.
What makes me angry is that if all the related apps on Windows start saving the image files in this ‘Windows Media Photo’ format as default (same happens with WMP, IE and other crap), this could turn into the most used format in just one or two years.
Yes, most PC users are that stupid… they just use whatever Microsoft throws at them and don’t make the slightest effort to learn a bit about standards or other options.
And then goes another antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft…
What makes me angry is that if all the related apps on Windows start saving the image files in this ‘Windows Media Photo’ format as default (same happens with WMP, IE and other crap), this could turn into the most used format in just one or two years.
There’s no need to be angry. MS published the WMPhoto image format spec. Consequently, it shouldn’t be all that difficult for people to write their own viewers/editors/etc.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx
There’s no need to be angry. MS published the WMPhoto image format spec. Consequently, it shouldn’t be all that difficult for people to write their own viewers/editors/etc.
Quote from the license you must agree to before reading the spec (emphasis mine):
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, You and Microsoft agree as follows:
1. You may review these Materials only (a) as a reference to assist You in planning and designing Your product, service or technology (“Product”) to interface with a Microsoft product, specification, service or technology (“Microsoft Product”) as described in these Materials; and (b) to provide feedback on these Materials to Microsoft. All other rights are retained by Microsoft; this Agreement does not give You rights under any Microsoft patents. You may not (i) duplicate any part of these Materials, (ii) remove this Agreement or any notices from these Materials, or (iii) give any part of these Materials, or assign or otherwise provide Your rights under this Agreement, to anyone else.
So no, not a free format at all.
it doesn’t cost you any money, so it is most definitely free.
That depends in which way you use “free”.
Free as in technology I can use as I please.
OR
Free as in “I can’t use it, but I don’t have to pay for not being able to use it”.
I always use free as in cost associated to the product.
But considering the limitation on the english language I can see where people have me mistaken. It’s the same word, but I always capitalize Free(liberty) and keep free being cost associated.
Okay. I’ll remember that.
But then you must remember that many people do not capitalize Free(liberty) when they are talking about freedom.
In Denmark we use the word “gratis” for your “free” while the Danish word for “free” (fri) usually is associated with freedom. The MIT-license is a “fri” license, in the sense of your Free(liberty).
In Danish “fri” usually means “without limitations”. Languages are funny, huh?
They definitely are. I sometimes get really pedantic about the English language because it’s abused so often. Some people use other languages to denote a difference (libre,gratis), which makes sense, but it doesn’t help when it’s just (F|f)ree. In the same sense, the christians use the upper case G in God when they are talking about their deity but lower case g when referring to some god in general.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to troll, I just get caught up in language differences and sometimes forget that people aren’t all native english here.
Are you serious or just trolling?
“Free” means much more than “it doesn’t cost anything”
No I’m serious. Free and free are different in my mind
Yes, most PC users are that stupid… they just use whatever Microsoft throws at them and don’t make the slightest effort to learn a bit about standards or other options.
——-
I’ll use whatever tool to get the job done. If this new format can offer me better quality at less than JPG picture files, then I’ll consider using it.
Does anyone know if this supports alpha transparencies? That would be HUGE for this new format. I’m sick and tired of JPG not supporting it, the limitations of GIF with 256 colors, and PNG and their larger file sizes. IMO, its really about time a better picture format suitable for the web was developed. I dont care who creates it.
yes it does support alpha channel and it also supports more than 32 bits per color and many other clever things. also it only relies on integer arithmetics with no division ops so it is very suitable for embedded devices, like cameras and other stuff.
i say microsoft has a winner watching the technological side. i would sure use this format myself.
now we should only see what is going to happen because of it being proprietary format and because of it coming from “evil” corporation.
PS sorry for my english
Please take this format and throw it into the Sea. We do not need another Photo format especially one so restrictive as this one is.
If you want anyone to take you seriously in this market sector then you will GIVE it away. No Licensing fees ever. Make the source code available so that it can be ported to other platforms and incorporated into lots of applications without fear.
If you don’t then this stunt will be regarded with suspicion.
Remember that we have long memories and since you went after many of the major players in this market space with the FAT Patent you have a lot of work to do to reestablish your creditabilty.
….
If you want anyone to take you seriously in this market sector then you will GIVE it away. No Licensing fees ever. Make the source code available so that it can be ported to other platforms and incorporated into lots of applications without fear.
Are you all ready to watch the pigs fly outta my ass ?
If the tech is superior, I’d definitely take a look.
just read the subject line.
I wont be apart of supporting a new closed format…
I wonder how the lot of you would take to this format if it were a Ubuntu-developed and Ubuntu-promoted format.
Just a thought. 🙂
Yeah, and always you want to turn this into a proprietary vs. open source thing. Course as a Mac user, I would have thought you’d find this somewhat problematic as well. Why don’t think about that since you’re having thoughts anyway?
I don’t see a difference between proprietary and open-source — I use what works best for my particular situation. If you can’t compete feature-for-feature, or on quality, and instead have to resort to comparing ideologies, then you really can’t compete.
I like my Macs. I don’t care whether what they run is half-OSS/half-proprietary, full-OSS, or full-proprietary — what counts is that using it is a painless and enjoyable experience. I’m not going to switch away any time soon because some F/OSS loons are pissed off that Apple won’t open-source what they’ve worked on behind closed doors.
DOH!
Of course there is a difference between proprietary and open-source.
Open Source means I can use the technology without limitations, making it much more reliable as long-term solution.
Proprietary means I cannot use the technology without limitations, effectively making the technology irrelevant.
But as an astroturfer you wouldn’t know better.
Almost there…
Open Source means the source is openly viewable and accessible, but what you can do with it depends on the license that you have agreed to.
Free means you can use the technology without limitations. Free means the freedom or liberty that the license permits, and has no relation to the cost or price. In this way, Free Software may be sold commercially at cost and supported by paid services.
There is a lot of code which is Open Source but at the same time is not Free Software. Whereas, as a subset, all Free Software must also be Open Source by nature.
Check the excellent link:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
There are a lot of people out there who try to confuse people by telling that Free Software is without cost and un-American. These people are either morons or intelligent people that tell lies trying to manipulate you for their own needs.
Free Software is big business and is a very competitive market, it produces great innovation and productivity increases.
Edited 2006-05-26 09:03
Ideologies don’t make one difference to people who want to get the job done with the best tool available.
Give me one example where Apple’s proprietary software limits me in some way. Really. Otherwise, you’re just astroturfing. 🙂
Take a look at our profiles, and let’s see who the astroturfer is, Linux Is Poo.
Red herring.
You lose.
If this was a Ubuntu-promoted format, then is would be open source, and could be adopted by anyone. A mac user, or windows user can still use it, if those OS’s chose to add it. Now when MS makes a format, it closes it down, so we will have to reverse engeneer it, and maybe we will get lucky and be able to read the file, and create one in 5 years, when the new format comes out.
The specifications to the format are open …
Got anything better, or just more of the same FUD? 🙂
The specifications are not open.
The specifications are accessible, but that does not qualify as open.
The license for seeing the specification does not allow for use in Open Source applications/systems, effectively working as a new Vendor Lock-In attempt.
Why not? I would even use an Apple-developed and Apple-promoted format, as long as it’s open. I don’t exactly suffer from a “not made here” syndrome.
It seems there are some specs for the MS format… but let’s say that Microsoft doesn’t have the best track record on open standards. That’s why some people are wary.
If they can assure they don’t to screw up the rest of the competition (like adding proprietary bits to the format until it becomes incompatible to anything but their filter) and they are taking the steps for making it a standard format (forget RAND; no royalties at all), then I have no problem with that. If they have a good faith, they will.
Although both are closely related, I tend to favour open formats over open source; my data is more important than my system, after all.
That’s a perfectly level-headed answer, and I’m on your side.
It’s the anti-Microsoft-regardless-of-anything loons that I’m trying to shake out.
There are no such anti-Microsoft-regardless-of-anything loons in here.
There are however people wanting to avoid Vendor Lock-In.
I doubt I qualify as one of those “loons”, but I don’t want to see another proprietary closed format to create Vendor Lock-In.
And no, the specifications are not open.
And there’s no such thing as vendor “lock-in” when it comes to Linux distributions? RHEL?
Vendor lock-in is in the eye of the beholder. If you don’t have the intention of using any other vendor, then what does it matter?
There is no vendor-lockin in Linux.
It matters because your actions mean I’m getting locked in as well.
Anyway, to quote your own profile: “Bio: Linux is f***ing garbage.”
To me this doesn’t sound like a person who chooses the best tool, but as a person with an ill, political agenda.
Who runs Ubuntu? A niche inside a niche. So trying to push a new format by making Ubuntu’s apps save in this format by default would hardly mean anything.
Well, in that case it would be an open and free format, opposite WMPhoto.
It could be used you, by me, by Microsoft and by Stallman, so people would probably not care about the legal parts.
The specs are open.
It’s not open!
An “Open Specification” means everybody can use it freely with absolutely no limitation of any kind.
You cannot legally create a library for Syllable OS or Haiku OS, that can handle WMP-images.
Ergo: It is not open. Accessible != Open.
Obviously Microsoft pattented this new proprietary format, and Linux users won’t be able to view this new format.
Why not? Fraunhofer and Thomson license the tech behind MP3 decoders/encoders — and yet, despite threats of patent infringement, etc — plug-in code written and dumped into the public domain has made it possible to integrate this technology into Linux. Technically, that code violates patents; however, since no one in particular owns it, nobody can be held accountable. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s practically impossible to put it back in. I suspect the same will be true of WMPhoto.
As long as a Linux distro (or whatever other free OS) can’t ship with mp3/etc codecs, certain device drivers, patented typeface hinting, anything common yet patented (old examples: GIF image support, encryption methods, etc) *out-of-the-box*, and there are manual steps to be taken to get that, most normal people will stay with Windows, remaining part of the problem.
JPEG is an standard (at least defacto standard) and together with TIFF and EPS is standard format within graphical business such as printing plants, prepresses an repro houses.
Think of all the RIPs and other softwares that has to be updated to include support for the new format.
I think that the key will be if MS convinces camera manufacturers to move to this format. Having a higher fidelity format with superior compression is a tangible incentive for hardware OEMs.
“JPEG is an standard (at least defacto standard) and together with TIFF and EPS is standard format
within graphical business such as printing plants, prepresses an repro houses.”
Microsoft is working very hard to really own the media formats: office, audio, video, and now photos, a PDF-killer, ripping. They’ve taken much of the old “Apple pie”.
well, i actually pitty that nothing like this came up from open source comunity. jpeg is a very lausy algorithm and i fear this time Microsoft may succeed on this.. you know the drill, you own the desktop, you own everything…
Maybe the open source community could have been more proactive on image formats, but it’s misleading to say that “nothing like this” comes from open source.
The open source community came up with Vorbis, but Microsoft and Apple still pushed WMA resp. AAC. The open source community came up with FLAC, but Apple still created ALE. The open source community has been working hard on Theora. It’s not finished yet, but none of the proprietary companies have shown any signs of wanting to work with Xiph to get open formats in widespread usage.
For the obvious reason: vendor lock-ins. Those companies don’t like public format they don’t control themselves.
Consider this: Like other technologies (OfficeXML, C#, etc), MS has a powerful incentive to get this image format adopted as a standard over JPEG2000. It doesn’t make sense that it would want to hobble adoption with strong restrictions.
If this format never catches on, then those of you who oppose it have nothing to worry about. If it does catch on, people are going to write and disseminate plug-ins (ie. like MP3/WMA/WMV) for Linux and other platforms, so it won’t be held hostage to patent/licensing hell.
In other words, if it’s better, people will use it. But it won’t matter much. Technology is expendible.
It doesn’t make sense that it would want to hobble adoption with strong restrictions.
It makes sense if your end goal is vendor lock-in.
There are too many WMV3 vids out there that I can’t play on my machine. I really don’t want another format that you have to find a Windows machine to view. At least videos aren’t an essential component of most webpages…!
There are too many WMV3 vids out there that I can’t play on my machine. I really don’t want another format that you have to find a Windows machine to view. At least videos aren’t an essential component of most webpages…!
The “funny” part is that even in Windows the WMV3 vids out there have problems for play they
Well I would call changing to XP or Vista from Linux or OSX neccesarily an upgrade more a downgrade – yes Im enoyed that now that PNG has managed to get a bit somewhere MS is killing it .
But JPEG isnt the newest either AFAIK – its been around for … 10-15 years ?
A comment by a part-time pro photographer – how can he be pro & part time ?
MS is bending the landscape to their liking which .. hey they own the desktop so no problem for them .
“A vendor forcing people to use their application only on their platform only to view a commonly used file is being unfair to other companies, unfair to the market, and unfair to users, including its own customers.”
– Maybe there will be another court case for MS from the European Commision ..
Apache serves 60/70 percent – now something included in that – would surely catch on
Nothing against anything new – as long as its open.
There are ways to improve jpeg. Aritmick compresion, wavelets, etc. The real problem is as other said, these technologies are patented, so for free software this is not acceptable. The beaty of jpeg is that there was a team that developed a library for anyone to use. I doub that ms will release code like this. Stick to standards please!!!
Browser: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/2.0.3920; en; U; ssr)
And it specifies the the format in as much as the different depths and bit formats as well as extra information.
What it doesn’t contain is any information about how the image data is actually compressed. IE the algorithm used. it just shows us where in the file the image data goes.
That was why I downloaded it to read about the compression technique.
I guess that information lives elsewhere. Needless to say this is not enough information to be able to implement the format. Although its technical details are notheless interesting.
And it specifies the the format in as much as the different depths and bit formats as well as extra information.
What it doesn’t contain is any information about how the image data is actually compressed. IE the algorithm used. it just shows us where in the file the image data goes.
For more info on the format at this stage, you need to request a porting kit.
Email wmla AT microsoft.com
with subject: XPS WMPhoto License
The final licensing will conform to the XPS icense as WM Photo is also part of the XPS spec.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpslicense.mspx
Well duh! No creative author would be stupid enough to save their work as a jpeg…
Jpeg is a lossy format.
PNG is a lossless format.
PNG isn’t, however, well suited for photographic files (not that anything else that’s lossless really is). But it is at least lossless; and in terms of disk space with photo’s size is completely unimportant. However, if you were running a website, like OSN, that needed to save costs you’d send all of your images as lossy jpegs because it’s a high compression lossy format.
JPEG and PNG are not in the same category, and they do not serve the same purpose.
I am working as a Journalist and honestly, jpeg is more than enough for most photographers every day work. Sure, png would be my fav, as it is a loss less format, but jpeg does just fine. And with most memory cards for digital cameras in the range of 512 MB or 1 GB and up, storage space is hardly an argument for switching to a new format.
Furthermore, many professional photographers will use preferrably tif format for digital images, if they don’t stick to a good analog Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. And mailing images… Those who need high quality pictures use broadband anyways, so where is the need for the new format which will be proprietary anyways?
“Maybe WMPhoto is simply technologically superior.”
Maybe it’s just bullshit.
“And you think that MS would have made such claims knowing that it would be readily possible to prove/disprove their claims?”
Companies making claims that turns out to be untrue? Marketing people hyping technologies way out of proportion?
Noooo, that cant be.
format specs:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx
compressor based on something called “lapped biorthogonal transform”:
http://research.microsoft.com/~malvar/papers/dcc00.pdf
There’s one reason why this is being done. Microsoft has tried and failed over the years to completely take over the web, and they still want to do it. With their IE dominance they tried to get people to replace HTML and normal web standards for ActiveX. Now they’re at it again. Replace JPEG, GIF, PNG and try and replace HTML with stuff like XAML when Vista comes out etc. etc.
Of course, if Microsoft were serious about making things better they would just submit these to neutral standards bodies, like the W3C, so that anyone can implement them, but of course, they’re not. They want control.
Oh no, another proprietary format from Microsoft, they will probably lockup their customers using DRM in future…
—
Pixel image editor – http://www.kanzelsberberger.com
Doesn’t matter much to me if the industry doesn’t adopt it widely. If it’s MS it doesnt mean the industry will adopt it : Look at WMA, its barely used in devices.
Even if it’s open source (or fully documented) I would still not support it : I hate the damn name : Does there always have to be a “Windows” in every format released by MS? Why not something like CLGF : Compressed Lossy Graphics Format (or File).
As someone who has worked professionally as a web developer, I think this new format will not be all that ubiquitous. Sure, people might use it for their personal photo libraries and some personal web sites, but it will not likely catch on with use as a primary format for web sites. Most customers want sites to be developed with the greatest audience possible. As such, that means using the most available formats. If it were simply a matter of superior format quality, then PNG (which I absolutely love) would have been much more popular for web sites, particularly given its ability to have alpha transparency. I can’t really use it however because some web browsers can’t fully use it (IE). The issue is one of backwards compatibility with other browsers. Not every browser out there is going to be able to use this format, even if the spec is opened up, at least not for some time.
Another good example is government web sites, which I have done several of. Government (at least in the US where I am at) requires that web sites not have preference for one browser or another. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally, you are not allowed to use code that will run on one browser or another (much of this is in section 508 policies). Because of that I was forced to watch my CSS, HTML and Javascript usage to ensure that browsers such as Netscape 4 still functioned just as well as Firefox or IE. I also was prohibited from using PNG for those reasons. I could have made browser detects that would have made slight changes to the site rendering based on browser, but that was not permitted.
Given that many organizations will not make use of PNG on their web sites, even though every browser I can think of can use it it without transparency, I have a hard time believing that this format will be widely used on the internet, which will slow its adoption growth.
What is the average size of a large jpg image? Maybe about 40K – 500K? Maybe less? Do we really need better compression? Everywhere I go I hear that storage space is getting cheaper and cheaper and more irrelivent, and that this is why windows vista is a *@#@ 10 gig install (which is completly insane, as having used vista it doesnt do or have anything that warrents that kind of disk space usage). Yet here we are quiviling about a lousy 20K-250K of space. When was the last time anyone actually gave any thought to the space consumption of ANYTHING that is less than 10MB or so?
How can you not see it? Three letters: ‘D’, ‘R’, ‘M’. Microsoft already has WMV and WMA that are DRM capable. Why *wouldn’t* they make this WMP format DRM capable also? I see no reason why they wouldn’t.
Regardless, just another reason to stick with PNG/JPEG.
Right, then. I was just checking OSNews.com. And then, you know that feeling where you know something awful is going to happen, but you can’t change it because no matter what — other people will still cause it to happen because of their ignorance? Yeah. That dawned on me after I saw this little tidbit of news sitting in the middle of the page. Now I’m sitting here, imagining all those hours that Microsoft made me waste, all the frustration I had to go through, because Windows is a piece of cr*p (necessary to run games, yeah, I know…) that had to be reinstalled every few months. I thought that was the worst. It isn’t. They just HAD to come up with another format, which is gonna invade the Internet because Joe doesn’t know or care about WORLDWIDE STANDARDS. Seriously, if anyone here knows Bill Gates personally, give him another pie in the face on my behalf. Maybe I’m being a bit harsh, but the ground reality is: This is going to really inconvenience my future.
Jpeg 2000 has been here for quite a while. It’s there on OSX. Any app can easily save to the OS supported file formats (which include JP2) and the browsers based on WebKit (like Safari and variants) support it very well also.
I stopped using linux as a (primary) desktop quite some time ago so I can’t be sure, but I am pretty certain JPeg2000 is suppored by a lot of linux apps.
So are we all lagging behind because our ‘beloved’ internet explorer released in 2001 still doesn’t support Jpeg2000?
JPeg200 is really great. I mean you get good quality at a smaller size than jpeg. There is little reason not to use in on the web… old browsers aside.
Maybe we should create some websites using exclusively Jpeg2000. If the photo content is so interesting that people really want it, they will upgrade their browsers.
Now, why doesn’t Firefox support Jpeg2000 out of the box? You have to use a plugin for this on windows…
Start making all porn sites galleries in JP2 and we might have some more switchers 🙂
On a side note, i would be happy if MS supported transparent PNG’s in their browsers…
I guess IE6 will never see the light of that.