What is Digg?194 Comments
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -7/+61This spec is released under Microsoft's "Open Specification Promise", not true open-source. Under the OSP, MS pledges not to charge royalties or invoke patent rights against anyone who uses the standard, but the rights still belong to MS.
On its face, it sounds pretty good, as long as you trust MS to keep its pledges. I'm not sure why they don't just open up the spec. Perhaps they want to keep developing the standard and charge for a future version. - FulcrumVitesse, on 10/10/2007, -19/+58What devilish plot is MS cooking up now?
- gyrfalcon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+37Umm PNG can do 64-bit RGB+alpha: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/book/chapter05.html
Most diggers don't even know what HDR truly is beside OOOH PRETTY PICTURES... - houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35Microsoft doesn't own it.
- Sirocco, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32If the spec isn't open, they can add functionality that only they can easily access. Ultimately it's about control and MS wants to control every aspect of your PC's operation.
- RogerStrong, on 10/10/2007, -20/+46*yawn*
It's not too long ago that IBM was the FUD-spewing evil company, and Microsoft was the brave new upstart. Now it's Microsoft vs Google. No doubt in a few years Google will be the company everyone loves to hate. - t3soro, on 10/10/2007, -24/+49what's wrong with PNG?
- bradym80, on 10/10/2007, -25/+50We all know the drill.
1. Initially will only work on Microsoft platforms (Zune, Windows Mobile, Xbox360, Vista, Crippled XP support giving you a reason to upgrade.)
2. Cameras that only do Microsoft formatted images
3. Non Existant Mac/Linux support, Until the DRM is cracked and a non official, real open source app can view them.
4. Another failed format, pain, struggle, resent for Microsoft
5. Rinse, repeat with another soon to fail crippleware format.
I cant wait for the time when 30% of the images in my safari browser wont load because unaware ***** accidentally make the format ubiquitous. - brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25You mean like Apple selling DRM music that cant be played back on non-Apple portable music players?
- ickusslime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Then the same holds true for their customers....
- wingnut21, on 10/10/2007, -24/+43Oh boy, I can't wait until HD Photo only works in IE!
/sarcasm? - mdimmett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Last time I checked JPEG wasn't open source either. They have patents and fees associated with using there format. IE, if you don't own a program that creates a JPEG you can't use a JPEG. PNG is the only popular open source format.
- ghaltmann, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Firstly, if you read this article and inserted "Apple" in place of Microsoft then everyone would be crapping themselves at how insightful and future-thinking Jobs & Co. are and praise would abound.
Secondly, this doesn't sound like a bad format. Looking at the strengths and specs of the MS proposed format I don't see any drawbacks. There's just the stigma of Microsoft. Which i personally don't have.
Lastly, Why the ***** is the JPEG group still deciding this? They are the ones who came up with the ultra-craptastic JPEG format which sucks in the first place. Why should they even be allowed to choose it's successor. - MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -9/+26Possibly to make digital cameras not work with Linux/Mac?
:-P - acu8509, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22Looks like the only thing HD Photo has on PNG is that its 'multi-page' and HDR Format. For most people i think png will still be the favorite choice of designers because of the open format. The only places i can see HD Photo taking off are in professional photography websites and possibly sites like deviantArt. seems like MS is trying to hard to jump on the HDR bandwagon.
- cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18PNG is lossless. The correct question to ask is "What's wrong with PNG/JPEG?". HD Photo supports both lossless and lossy modes, so it competes with both.
- wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_graphics_file_formats
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18ARDTARD? WOW. R-tard.
- cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG
Yes, it most definitely is. - gyrfalcon, on 10/10/2007, -9/+21estvir: Hey lets pretend like we know what we're talking about...
- gyrfalcon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Someone please digg acu8509 up!!! PNG is just fine for HDR: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/book/chapter05.html
- MioTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Java and C# may look similar to someone who doesn't know either, but they're really quite different. .NET has gone off in a very different direction from Java, and has surpasesed it greatly in featureset (I'm look at you, LINQ.)
C# may be a similar language to Java, but the CLR and other .NET stuff backing it is very different. WPF, for instance, is a .NET technology. - MioTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11JPEG doesn't support the same range of colors, or compress as well as this.
- ThirdPrize, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20Why did MS come up with C# rather than going with Java, even though they are pretty much identical? It is because you would be foolish to build your future on things that you have no control over.
- FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14How can you compare C# to Java? C# is generations ahead of Java. For starters http://www.devhood.com/tutorials/tutorial_details.aspx?tutorial_id=76
- samdu, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Wait... Microsoft is "helping" Mozilla become a more "efficient" browser? Someone seems to have misplaced their sarcasm tag...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Actually their JPEG spec is pretty nice. Even our graphic designers (primarily Mac people) agreed.
- gyrfalcon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11PNG can do this already: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/book/chapter05.html
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14"Microsoft is known for its innovation in the technology world"
Source? - MStiles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Before everyone gets all in a tizzy over this because it came from Microsoft, please do a little research on this HD Photo format. It's actually (gasp) really really good. The algorithm is extremely lightweight on both the encode and decode side - less important for PCs, but more important for battery operated devices (like cameras). It supports monochrome, RGB, CMYK and even n-channel color representation, using up to 16-bit unsigned integer representation, or up to 32-bit fixed point or floating point. This makes it quite suitable for everything from simple web graphics to hi-res professional photo work and print layout or desktop publishing. It supports alpha channels. It runs from scalable compression (ala jpeg) up to lossless, but at better compression ratios at a given quality level.
It's good stuff. The best thing that could happen to it would be if the JPEG group took it up as a standard, because then it would become widespread enough not to be "in the hands of Microsoft" and we'd see lots of third-party encoders and decoders. - CircleFusion, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11So, in you're saying the other companies are guilty too. Good point, Topher. It almost sounded as if you were countering bradym's point for a second there, but now I see that you are giving supporting points.
- gyrfalcon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Having a Lossy HDR photo more or less negates the point of having a HDR doesn't it?
- MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Microsoft make a truly open standard? Not likely.
- texnofobix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's 640k not 64k. Don't you remember Conventional Memory?
- mseneschal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7HD-bmp all the way. (sarcasm)
- cbreaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Well, if you'd paid attention instead of climbing up on the soap box, you'd see that this image format not only can do lossy compression, but it can do extremely high quality lossless compression as well.
I'm not an audio snob; I don't need lossless compression (I'd need 6TB to store all the music that way anyways) but I do agree that 128Kbit is *****. Sure, MP3 encoders have improved a lot. But it's still *****. You need at least 256Kbit to eliminate the treble distortion. - cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6JPG and PNG are for completely different things... compressing non-photo graphics in JPG results in ugly artifacts, compressing photos in PNG results in huge files.
- edlowe0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Does this mean porn will look better?
- cbreaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Uhh, COBOL and PASCAL are old. Java is not. I'd say "mature" but I wouldn't say old.
Who's your so-called "experts" claiming doom for Java? NetCraft? - Jorg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8for bradym8:
1. Wrong... there are already multiple camera makers on board because it has many of the benefits of RAW but produces much smaller images.
2. Wrong... it is a pretty good bet that any cameras that support it will also support RAW.
3. Wrong... how about reading up on it before you spew *****. There is NO DRM in the format.
4. Wrong... it will fail just like WMV did. Oh wait...
Do yourself a favor and look at some of the tech Microsoft Research has produced in the last 10 years. - FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I thin HD Photo goes up toe 128 bit, in shot the image quality is comparable to a RAW image but lot smaller.
- wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5128-bit floating point.
- brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What are you talking about?
There are currently 159 portable players which support Microsoft DRM music, and none of them are Microsoft players except the Zune. There are 8 stores which sell Microsoft DRM music, and none of them are Microsoft's.
There is exactly one music store which sells Apple DRM music, and that is Apple iTunes.
There is exactly one portable player that plays Apple DRM music, and that is the Apple iPod.
Microsoft would be GLAD to have Apple have wma support on the iPod, and Toshiba, iRiver, etc, would LOVE to support Apple AAC DRM music on their players - Apple is the one that will never let either one happen.
Similarly, Apple will never let you run MacOS on your non-Apple PC, nor will they ever let Dell, Toshiba, or anyone else sell a Mac.
They are completely locked down and proprietary from top to bottom. - Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, what you're thinking of is tone-mapping. What they're talking about is *actuall* HDR -- the ability to store more colour and luminosity information in the image than can be displayed.
- cr3ative, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's got a pretty crappy name, let's face it.
HD PHOTO! BAM! HIGH DEFINITION!
JPEG2000 just sounds like "Chessmaster 8000". A stupid unnecessary version number, and nothing new. - larrythedog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There's a great deal of info on this on "This Week in Media" episode 51. http://pixelcorps.tv/twim51 It's a great show if you want to hear a bunch of geeking out about file formats! It actually sound like a good thing...
- FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So you can't just ignore the usage restrictions of one popular format and complain about the other. GIF debacle or not.
If anything, I think the whole GIF thing proves that if the format is viable and used widely, it CAN'T be controlled in the way everyone is fearful of. - Topher06, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Yeah, I mean, it would be so unfair for Microsoft to come out with an image format that some browsers might not support natively without a plug-in installed. This is, or course, completely different then the fact that like 30% of all online video files I want to see in IE or even FireFox won't display because I refuse to install QuickTime or that most of the online documentation must be openned through Acrobat. Man, I wish Microsoft would stop trying to impose different file formats on the world because we know that no other company on earth is trying to do the same thing.
- Sakumi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Uhm.. sorry to rain on your little fanboy parade there, but if you read the article anyone can use the format Microsoft would just own the rights to it.
- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I guess most diggers don't. After all, computers didn't exist before Windows 95... And some of them didn't, either.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is