Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image,
or a RAW file." But I repeat myself...

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image,
or a RAW file."

no, it doesn't say that at all.

what it says is this:
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

it also states:
...you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard
way, which isn't particularly useful.

in other words,
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

But I repeat myself...

that's all you do.

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

completely meaningless.

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image,
or a RAW file." But I repeat myself...

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

Oki... Repeat and rinse:

exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448.* | wc -l
715
exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448.jpg | wc -l
316
exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448.png | wc -l
76

I opened the .jpg and saved the file to .png in Preview. Care to share
what soft you used in your example?
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

True lossless jpeg has been available for quite some time now - jpeg2k

Yes but it's not compatible with the JPG rendering of websites etc...

and why it was a dismal failure.

This new compression would be seamless in usage with those created today
with cameras and phones. And would give you better SOOC ditto.

while that's an advantage, it's a solution in search of a problem.

I think you can make a case for images downloaded for web page use just
not needing the finest possible quality *in most cases*. Just because a
process which allows smaller files/faster downloads is available doesn't
mean that it *must* always be used.

Isaac

In article ,
isw wrote:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

True lossless jpeg has been available for quite some time now - jpeg2k

Yes but it's not compatible with the JPG rendering of websites etc...

and why it was a dismal failure.

This new compression would be seamless in usage with those created today
with cameras and phones. And would give you better SOOC ditto.

while that's an advantage, it's a solution in search of a problem.

I think you can make a case for images downloaded for web page use just
not needing the finest possible quality *in most cases*. Just because a
process which allows smaller files/faster downloads is available doesn't
mean that it *must* always be used.

In a global community that's more and more dependent on mobile data
transfers you can not rely on that bandwidth will be as inexpensive as
it is today. The market could drive the prices up and then an algorithm
that saves 30% of the bandwidth could be very interesting for both
service providers and end users.
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:43:22 +0100, android wrote:

The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless JPEGs...
Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?

http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...on-algoritm-th
at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/

http://tinyurl.com/kapexnj

The answer is no. There will always be people who will prefer their
own editing of an image over that built into the camera.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image,
or a RAW file."

no, it doesn't say that at all.

what it says is this:
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

it also states:
...you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard
way, which isn't particularly useful.

in other words,
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

But I repeat myself...

that's all you do.

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

completely meaningless.

You are hilarious.

Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG
file has more meta data than the NEF file!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG
image,
or a RAW file."

no, it doesn't say that at all.

what it says is this:
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

it also states:
...you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard
way, which isn't particularly useful.

in other words,
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

But I repeat myself...

that's all you do.

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

completely meaningless.

You are hilarious.

Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG
file has more meta data than the NEF file!

Err... Poof!

exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448.cr2 | grep -i exif| wc -l
49
exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448.jpg | grep -i exif| wc -l
38
exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448.png | grep -i exif| wc -l
1

Could you provide the command that you used to create that png? So that
it can be repeated in a controlled test? ;-)
--
teleportation kills

"android" wrote

| In a global community that's more and more dependent on mobile data
| transfers you can not rely on that bandwidth will be as inexpensive as
| it is today.

You probably can. It's been going down as technology
improves. But what's really increased webpage size has
been speed. Websites try to have fast-loading pages.
Some sites are now in the 10s of MB for one webpage,
with MBs of script, video, etc. The WashPo homepage
loads almost 1 MB of CSS! (Which includes embedded
fonts.) They're not much concerned with traffic size.
They'll spend lots of resources to get more tracking and
more ads.

| The market could drive the prices up and then an algorithm
| that saves 30% of the bandwidth could be very interesting for both
| service providers and end users.

First you have to subtract the HTML, CSS, script,
PNG, etc. There's only potentially about 25% savings on
JPGs. Also, most big sites these days use "lazy-load"
javascript to cater the image to the destination and
only load the image if the page is scrolled that far.

So Google and Akamai might see a savings here.
Most commercial websites are using vast traffic
on ads and tracking. The WashPo site has a wasteful
PNG as part of a campaign to coerce people into
allowing them to use push notification. Which means
they want you to allow them to maintain a hidden
connection to their site so they can send down even
more news snippets and ads during the day, without
you being deliberately connected to them.

Since JPG is not used for quality in the first place, a
slight quality increase won't make much difference. The
better compression will be slightly useful, once common
software makes it easy to use. There's no reason to
expect an effect on camera usage. It's NOT lossless.
And image size rarely matters for cameras. The images
are gigantic, even as JPGs. Those are then typically
viewed on the phone or shrunk down to send to a
friend. Last week a friend was showing me the apps
she uses on her iPhone. She takes photos and then
applies filters, like "watercolor painting". Then she shows
those to friends. Her images never leave the camera
and never get seen bigger than iPhone screen size.
She has fun. Edit the photos? Too much trouble. I'm
sure she hasn't the slightest idea of the file size of those
images. For her, her photo hobby is as self-contained
on her iPhone as if she were using an Etch-a-Sketch.
I imagine a lot of people are like that.

JPG is arguably the worst format for camera images.
It's popular because it's small, universally supported
and royalty-free. It will never be a good format. After
RAW, the best format would be a highly compressed
bitmap -- some kind of TIF. I'm surprised the camera
makers haven't come up with such a thing: "Camera TIF",
maybe with EXIF data.