What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
116 Comments
- thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+87What the hell's the big deal? Pull that 6-foot stick out of your ass wump, for the love of god...
If Microsoft can create a format that provides a better quality image at a better compression, then that's a _good_ thing. If nothing else, it will drive other industry players to bust their asses to come up with an even _better_ format.
This is how it works people; this is how competition drives the quality of the product up. And don't tell me there isn't any competition, if you RTFA you'd know that Microsoft AND Apple got sued over some JPEG issues awhile back. If their claims are actually true, and the format is truly superior, then refusing to use the format _just_ because Microsoft developed it is retarded and so are you. - userundefine, on 10/12/2007, -22/+57"There's a big problem both with JPEG and JPEG2000: both rely on algorithms that are heavily patented."
PLEASE tell me you do not think this so-called "HD" format will not be patented. Let's be real.
And, really, "HD Photo"? Their marketing department obviously made this whole format up themselves. Is "HD" the new iCraze? - pjack91, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38It is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with and. They only tell you it isn't in second grade when they are trying to teach you the fundamentals of sentence structure.
- dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33And the paperless society is right around the corner.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27"People didn't stop using PNG because of MS. People didn't use PNG much because it's horrible at compression."
That's because the PNG format was designed to be lossless. HOWEVER, a properly optimized PNG file can have a perfectly acceptable file size for the right applications. For photos with a lot of data, JPEG slaps PNG around in the file size department, as PNG photos are huge and don't even look that much better than high quality JPEGs. But for pretty much everything else, PNG works great.
If you play around with PNG in an application like Fireworks, you'll quickly realize that PNG is a fantastic format for everything except photos. You start thinking, "Damn. Why doesn't everyone use this? It rules!" only to answer your question with, "Oh yeah. Microsoft didn't like it, and IE didn't support it."
IMO, PNG and JPEG/JPEG2000 can coexist and provide us with all the images we need. As a bonus, PNG is an open format. - tapo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24PNG is lossless, and designed to compete with GIF, not JPEG. PNG is much better for things such as screenshots or small web buttons, as there isn't a huge variety of different colors and the extra clarity of PNG makes the image easier to see.
For photographs, JPEG or JPEG2000 is the way to go. A PNG would be much too big. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27I thought png was supposed to save the world and feed the hungry children. Wtf?
- jimripper, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32You sound more like the bearer of bad grammar. And why can't MS create standards? Fool.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18PNG uses lossless compression, much like FLAC for images. That's why PNG files look so clear and have no artifacts. When you've got simple images with solid colors a lossless compressor works absolutely fine. It's only when you have complex images (mainly photos) where PNG fails. Even then, the file has to have some resolution to it to really make a difference over today's broadband. Photos that are 100x100 for icons and whatnot can work just fine as PNGs.
If you want to display a Flickr gallery....well yeah, PNG ***** sucks. - Zal91, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I usually use PNG for screenshots and JPEG for pictures without sharp lines. Although GIF is useful buttons and such.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Good. Cut the ***** patent trolls Forgent off from their ill-gotten licensing money!
- bbcountach, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19with service packs 1, 2, and 3.
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21This is unbelkievable. When companies claim a patent on a format, people stop using it. If it weren't for Internet Explorer, PNG would be the number one choice for images. But Explorer has problems with it. And now we know why. Claiming a format upfront is the ultimate doom. Nobody with a lick of sense will develop sites with that format.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11If it provides what they say, and they license it out for free, or at least comparable to JPEG and there's no controversy over who owns it, then it should be a very good product, however, time and time again, Microsoft has gone to great lengths to prove otherwise.
- iNoles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12that is a windows bitmap format.
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I wasn't even aware png did compress.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9That's because HD Photo isn't available yet. Sorry for having to state the obvious at you.
- zotzed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12No, no one would use a standard which is patented, say like .mp3 (if you seem to remember a recent $1.5 billion for patent infringement on .MP3).
You can stop talking out of your ass now. - dustinhoffman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9In reply to Mythos quote:
"I doubt however that this format could ever replace JPEG, at least on the web, because with connections speeds evolving with time the impact of images in the loading time of web pages is becoming insignificant."
Regardless of speed and load times... there is something to be said about any standard being more efficient... Lowering the bandwidth needed to download images would work against the argument for net neutrality.... - Brows, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10There is nothing wrong with the current digital imaging standards.
Look how long jpg2000 took for people adopt to it......oh wait it hasn't yet. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No the best marketed usually wins, and I'll wager that Microsoft has a fair amount of weight that they can throw at that one.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12no, png is too open.
- GregR, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that this isn't anything new. It's just a re-branded "Windows Media Photo" format that didn't take off a couple of years ago because it was (and still is) a proprietary format.
Now if it was an open format, that would be a huge step forward, but Microsoft can't see that doing an open format would be a bonus to them if only for the political good will. I for one won't hold my breath on that score. - evilelf2407, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9this itself won't change anything, its whether browsers like firefox and safari (assuming IE will definitely pick it up) will use it.
- Me1000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9If IE doesnt support it, it wouldnt be the first time MS didnt support their own format!
PlaysForSure and the Zune anyone??? - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Command line encoder for (technical) evaluation:
http://www.billcrow.com/wmphoto/dpktools.zip
Works on wine.
It's biggest fault is that nobody trusts MS not to threaten/sue developers of cross platform implementations down the road. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Nothing possible about it. Definite.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This will kill JPEG like WMA killed MP3.
- schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9In his case though, his application of the word and does not fit for the start of a sentence.
- theGOG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's likely that the use of jpegs will continue regardless, for quite some time.
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"in fact it hasn't even got to see any evidence yet..."
That doesn't seem to refrain you from bashing the product. - iNoles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10oops.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@MrViklund
How do you figure? I'm a Linux-using, firefox-loving, open source hippy and even I won't use PNG for photos. Use the right tool for the job. - Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh boy. Another goddamn proprietary format.
***** off, Microsoft. And ***** off all you little shills here on digg. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Possibly a proprietary format? Not interested."
So you don't use ANY proprietary file formats? Which one's do you use, because you've cut out a huge chunk of the available options by not using proprietary formats? - imjustsayin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How exactly is submitting a format for approval by an "international standards organization" creating a de facto standard?
Seems that they are not trying to become the standard just because they say, but because it is better than the current standard. I would be interested in having more facts as to how much better the compression is and what is the picture quality.
It isn't necessary to go into auto-hate mode over everything that Microsoft does. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Further evidence that this is the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo#Licensing
Microsoft has patents on the technology in HD Photo. A Microsoft representative stated in a January 2007 interview that in order to encourage the adoption and use of HD Photo, the specification is made available under Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, which asserts that Microsoft offers the specification for free, and will not file suit on the patented technology, and that open-source software can therefore make use of the format. However, as of Microsoft's February 15, 2007 update, HD Photo is still not among the technologies that Microsoft has listed as being covered by the Open Specification Promise. - oracleofmist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Think we'll have to fight to see this in linux (or even view)? like how we have to manually install, buying rights for of course ;) mp3's w32codes etc?
- spatznick, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15Possibly a proprietary format? Not interested.
- alamko1999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5everyone then microsoft will sue them for patents
- Estazor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3PNGs have too high of a file size that is why it's not being used widely. It's good for small stuff but not complex images which is sadly the majority of the web.
- Rammsteined, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11The big deal is, if you use it in your software you can be sued for patent infringement - the same reason mp3 support on Linux is sketchy.
- SamL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Another way to think of it is that PNGs are more like GIFs than JPEGs. (see http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngfaq.html#jpeg-logo )
And IE has supported PNGs since IE4. They supported transparent PNGs that worked like transparent GIFs, where a pixel is either transparent or opaque. They just didn't support a full alpha channel (where a given pixel can have translucency between transparent and opaque) until IE7. - Hefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This will kill JPEG like WMA killed MP3."
Stole my thunder. ;) - Darcy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Their's always room for something better, if it moves things forward i'm all for it.
- muka3d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BetaNews has a shortened, more concise report:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Aims_to_Replace_JPEG_Format/1173369784 - ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I disagree, I think the digital camera manufacturers will decide where this one goes. Picture quality and file size are huge deciding factors for them. If they can get better quality pictures in less space, they're going to use it. And if people want to post pictures they took, you know IE will support showing them on the web... the other web browsers will just have to fall in line.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The patents on JPEG ended an age ago. It is now a bonafide open standard and JPEG2K was made specifically with dodging state coerced monopolies in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Potential_patent_issues - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@GMorgan,
You are right about JPEG, and right about the 'goal' of JPEG2000. Unfortunately, the JPEG committee put the little waiver next to their no patent promise.
Quoting Wikipedia.
"It is of course still possible that other organizations or individuals may claim intellectual property rights that affect implementation of the standard, and any implementers are urged to carry out their own searches and investigations in this area."
In other words, we're not putting our balls on the line for you, it's all caveat emptor here. Even though the JPEG patents had no chance, there is enough reluctance and not enough technical advantage to the file format for the various software and hardware vendors to take the plunge.
There is also some problems with Debian based licenses and JPEG2000. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"PlaysForSure and the Zune anyone???"
That had more to do with the ability to adapt quickly (like Apple with the FairPlay DRM). Having the Zune being the only player for it's DRM means they can change it in a heartbeat. Where as with PlaysForSure, they have to go to their big committee and spend months talking about any changes first. -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is