Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] JPEG XR

Expand Messages
  • Keith Martin
    ... Bl***y Microsoft. It has to try to own *everything*! And note the spin: With JPEG XR, You re giving people much of the capability of raw in a convenient
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Sometime around 6/8/07 (at 09:30 -0400) Yuval Levy said:

      >http://news.com.com/8301-13580_3-9752772-39.html
      >
      >how will this affect our workflows?

      Bl***y Microsoft. It has to try to own *everything*!
      And note the spin:

      'With JPEG XR, "You're giving people much of the capability of raw in
      a convenient file format. On the ultra-high-end there might be still
      a preference to use raw," Rossi said.'

      "Ultra-high-end"?
      Will JPEG XR record every last bit of data without any lossy
      compression? Will it allow real non-destructive post-shooting
      adjustment of settings such as exposure and white balance?
      Check the last paragraph of that story: no it won't.
      Heck, I need all those things. And while I know I'm not low-end by
      any means, I'm certainly *not* "ultra-high-end". I know people who
      are, and I know I'm not at that level.

      Microsoft, get your sticky little fingers OFF my pixels!

      (Sorry, I just had to let that out..)

      k
    • Flemming V. Larsen
      As long as it a free format I don t care who s developed it. And as I read it I ll be the Joint Photographic Experts Group that ll have control over the
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        As long as it a free format I don't care who's developed it.
        And as I read it I'll be the Joint Photographic Experts Group that'll have
        control over the format.

        Read: http://kortlink.dk/44rb

        I normally shoot raw; so to me the format wont be that important, unless it
        in the futere can be used as a HD display standard in the panoviewers.

        - Flemming
      • Andrei Zdetovetchi
        Yuv, Speaking from my point of view, I think it will affect my workflow in the same way as DNG had already done. Meaning... not at all! :) DNG seems
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Yuv,

          Speaking from my point of view, I think it will affect my workflow in the same way as DNG had already done.
          Meaning... not at all! :)

          DNG seems interesting but so far I wasn't needing it. I don't see any big advantage for me, to convert my RAW files into DNG. I can use them just like that... I already convert RAW into TIFFs before I stitch them, so what can I do with DNG into my stitching workflow?! Maybe if I was doing studio photography for fashion or portraits... maybe, but I don't do that so I don't think I need DNG. I have only one camera so I don't have troubles with multiple types of RAW files.

          Regarding the Jpeg XR, seems interesting by having this extended range, from 8 bits to 16 or 32... wow! Nice... but after all it's a jpeg, meaning quality loss on compression. So if I don't need loosing information on compression, I can still use RAW files and convert them to 16bits TIFFs.

          Maybe we will get used to jpg xr, but only if it gets adopted by many software and hardware applications. Until then I guess we just wait and see.

          Best regards,
          Andrei Zdetovetchi

          the panoblogus - http://www.csvd.ro/panoblog/
          flick photostream - http://www.flick.com/photos/zdeto


          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Yuval Levy <yahoo06@...>
          To: PanotoolsNG Yahoo group <PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, August 6, 2007 4:30:53 PM
          Subject: [PanoToolsNG] JPEG XR













          http://news. com.com/8301- 13580_3-9752772- 39.html



          how will this affect our workflows?

          Yuv












          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Daniel Oi
          ... range, from 8 bits to 16 or 32... wow! Nice... but after all it s a jpeg, meaning quality loss on compression. HD Photo/JPEG XR has a lossless compression
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Andrei Zdetovetchi <zdeto@...>
            wrote:
            > Regarding the Jpeg XR, seems interesting by having this extended
            range, from 8 bits to 16 or 32... wow! Nice... but after all it's a
            jpeg, meaning quality loss on compression.

            HD Photo/JPEG XR has a lossless compression setting so that's not an
            issue. JPEG2000 also has a lossless compression setting which I
            experimented with as an alternative to TIFF but it was so slow that I
            gave up on it. JPEG XR is supposed to be much faster compressing and
            decompressing so maybe it'll be useful as an intermediate format as
            well. I've also read that JPEG XR doesn't suffer from the roundoff error
            that JPEG does during compression and decompression.

            JPEG XR seems to be a way forward, JPEG really needs to be replaced as a
            final delivery format on the web.

            Cheers,
            Daniel.
          • luca v
            You don t know how many ideas.. http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK ... L email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail [Non-text
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              You don't know how many ideas..
              http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK


              ---------------------------------

              ---------------------------------
              L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Yuval Levy
              ... how about PNG? Yuv
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Daniel Oi wrote:
                > JPEG XR seems to be a way forward, JPEG really needs to be replaced as a
                > final delivery format on the web.

                how about PNG?

                Yuv
              • Fabio Bustamante
                I agree with Daniel, Yuv, but I m not sure if PNG would be the best way. I think a lossy format with RAW s bigger depth is more interesting than a lossless
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree with Daniel, Yuv, but I'm not sure if PNG would be the best way.

                  I think a lossy format with RAW's bigger depth is more interesting than
                  a lossless format. Well, at least for the consumer level.

                  Today people are taking JPG files to printing bureaus. However JPG's
                  color correction, for example, is way worse than what can be done with
                  RAW or film. I think this is a major step back from film days.

                  On the other hand, if printing bureaus machines start to be extended
                  JPGs aware (or any other new standard, it doesn't matter) and take
                  advantage from the extra features, it would be a fantastic advance. An
                  indoor picture totally yellow casted because of tungsten lights could be
                  corrected to an almost perfect color. Exactly how it was done with film,
                  maybe with even better results. And in a totally transparent way for the
                  newbie consumer.

                  Of course professionals would stick to lossless RAWs. But professionals
                  are pretty well supplied in terms of image formats...

                  I think some attention could indeed be driven to bring quality
                  improvements to low end consumers. JPG is a pretty limited format for
                  some uses.

                  Fabio.

                  Yuval Levy wrote:
                  > Daniel Oi wrote:
                  >
                  >> JPEG XR seems to be a way forward, JPEG really needs to be replaced as a
                  >> final delivery format on the web.
                  >>
                  >
                  > how about PNG?
                  >
                  > Yuv
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Roger Howard
                  ... JPEG XR - Microsoft aside - has a lot of benefits I d love to see us be able to use. Having a unified format with both lossy and lossless, a range of bit
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, August 6, 2007 11:24 am, Yuval Levy wrote:
                    > Daniel Oi wrote:
                    >> JPEG XR seems to be a way forward, JPEG really needs to be replaced as a
                    >> final delivery format on the web.
                    >
                    > how about PNG?

                    JPEG XR - Microsoft aside - has a lot of benefits I'd love to see us be
                    able to use. Having a unified format with both lossy and lossless, a range
                    of bit depths, proper alpha support, ICC, XMP, etc etc, has so many
                    benefits I'd like to think that if the only reservation is Microsoft being
                    the originator then we can get past that - of course, that assumes they'll
                    have a proper licensing model for it. If it's not compatible with all
                    common licensing then it's moot.

                    PNG definitely cannot address the same needs as JPEG/JPEGXR.

                    -Rh
                  • Yuval Levy
                    ... on this particular one I disagree because it becomes confusing to consumers. I d rather have two separate formats, one lossy and one lossless, easily
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Roger Howard wrote:
                      > Having a unified format with both lossy and lossless

                      on this particular one I disagree because it becomes confusing to
                      consumers. I'd rather have two separate formats, one lossy and one
                      lossless, easily discernible.

                      all the rest I agree. I have not seen any reason to move from Canon's
                      proprietary RAW format to Adobe's DNG - as long as there is decoding
                      software out there, I am not worried, and since the decoding software is
                      OpenSource (e.g. dcraw) I have no doubts that my original image files
                      will be readable 100 years for now.

                      What I miss is a format to store my workflow steps / modifications.
                      Currently it is PSD, but will there be software reading my old PSD 100
                      years from now?

                      Yuv
                    • Ben Knill
                      Flash 11 is going to support JPEG XR with supposedly better compression and an extended range. Has anyone done anything with this format or have any plans on
                      Message 10 of 11 , Aug 28, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Flash 11 is going to support JPEG XR with supposedly better compression and an extended range. 

                        Has anyone done anything with this format or have any plans on using it?
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.