If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9810024-39.html
A new attempt to provide a higher-end sequel to the ubiquitous JPEG image standard is officially under way. The multiple countries participating in the Joint Photographic Experts Group, which created the JPEG standard, have approved an effort to make Microsoft's HD Photo format a standard called JPEG XR, said Bill Crow, who has led Microsoft's HD Photo effort and who just took over the company's Microsoft Live Labs Seadragon imaging project. XR stands for "extended range," a reference to the format's ability to show a wider and finer range of tonal gradations and a richer color palette. "The country vote is done, and it passed," Crow said. "That means the International JPEG committee has decided to go ahead and create the standard. Now it's just a process of doing that work," a process that will begin later this month in a meeting in Kobe, Japan. The move is an important step in the transformation of the photo format from an in-house technology called Windows Media Photo to a neutral format more likely to be palatable to companies that don't want to be beholden to Microsoft. However, the move also means that Microsoft will have to be more patient with its hopes to get HD Photo to catch on more broadly. Standardization "typically takes around a year," Crow said. ... In Microsoft's view, HD Photo also offers better compression and support for in-camera image processing. It's built into Windows Vista, but Microsoft offers the software development kit to implement the technology free and with no royalty constraints. Image-editing powerhouse Adobe Systems has voiced support for the format. [MORE] MY TAKE: JPEG 2000 hasn't exactly taken the market by storm, and a new more capable format is badly needed, so let's hope JPEG XR takes off! -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
Why JPEG XR is badly needed:
The problem is 8-bit (per channel) JPEG. Although non-linearity gives it roughly 11 stop dynamic range, 8-bit luminosity resolution is more limited than many camera sensors (often 10-12 bits). While 8-bit JPEG is fine for scenes with lower luminosity range, more bits are needed for best results with higher luminosity range. This is a major, if not the major, reason to shoot RAW. * An alternative would be 12-bit JPEG, but there's too little support for that to be practical. * Another alternative is JPEG 2000, which also has a useful lossless mode, but it's still not widely supported, has EXIF issues, has potential patent issues, and puts a higher computational burden on the camera processor than JPEG. * Yet another alternative would be Adobe DNG as an alternative to proprietary camera RAW, but major camera manufacturers seem resultant to adopt it. * Lastly there's Microsoft's JPEG XR (HD Photo), which is more like JPEG than JPEG 2000 in terms of computational burden with compression efficiency comparable to JPEG 2000, but is not yet standardized. Until this is sorted out, RAW remains an important tool for scenes with higher luminosity range, despite its drawbacks. I personally don't use RAW often, but I do sometimes use it. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
Editors, Viewers, Browsers, and Applications that are already, or will soon be, HD PHoto and/or JPEG XR compatible: Editors: PhotoLine http://www.pl32.com - complete 32-bit editor (HD Photo format implemented for many months now) Viewers: Browsers Misc. Applications: (feel free to add yours as you find them) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
John Navas writes:
MY TAKE: JPEG 2000 hasn't exactly taken the market by storm, and a new more capable format is badly needed, so let's hope JPEG XR takes off! One of the things that made the original JPEG format supported by just about every imaging program under the sun was the availability of the royalty-free JPEG library produced by the Independent JPEG Group (basically Tom Lane). Every basement application author could just get the code and drop it into their application and start supporting JPEG. I don't think there were any licencing documents and certainly no payment involved. Can Microsoft bring itself to release something similarly unencumbered if it's based on their own code? Or will it take someone like Tom to produce an independent implementation before the format becomes widely adopted? Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
"Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... John Navas writes: MY TAKE: JPEG 2000 hasn't exactly taken the market by storm, and a new more capable format is badly needed, so let's hope JPEG XR takes off! One of the things that made the original JPEG format supported by just about every imaging program under the sun was the availability of the royalty-free JPEG library produced by the Independent JPEG Group (basically Tom Lane). Every basement application author could just get the code and drop it into their application and start supporting JPEG. I don't think there were any licencing documents and certainly no payment involved. Can Microsoft bring itself to release something similarly unencumbered if it's based on their own code? Or will it take someone like Tom to produce an independent implementation before the format becomes widely adopted? Dave They (Microsoft) already have given the code out freely. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
John Navas schrieb:
For first, this news is old news. It dates back to the JPEG meeting in Lausanne this summer. Why JPEG XR is badly needed: The problem is 8-bit (per channel) JPEG. Although non-linearity gives it roughly 11 stop dynamic range, 8-bit luminosity resolution is more limited than many camera sensors (often 10-12 bits). While 8-bit JPEG is fine for scenes with lower luminosity range, more bits are needed for best results with higher luminosity range. This is a major, if not the major, reason to shoot RAW. Probably, probably not. Another issue is - at least in my understanding - that photographers feel that they "loose" possibilities by lossy compression, i.e. image content is gone forever. I wouldn't say "badly" either. There are lots of proper alternatives that just wait to be used, you mentioned them. * An alternative would be 12-bit JPEG, but there's too little support for that to be practical. That goes, however, for all alternatives as well. Actually, the IJG seems to support 12bit by now. * Another alternative is JPEG 2000, which also has a useful lossless mode, but it's still not widely supported, has EXIF issues, has potential patent issues, and puts a higher computational burden on the camera processor than JPEG. The EXIF issues are currently addressed. Actually, the issue can be solved rather easily as JPEG2000 has more than enough room to include meta-data. You are correct when saying that it has complexity issues, though. The second major error made during its standardization. * Yet another alternative would be Adobe DNG as an alternative to proprietary camera RAW, but major camera manufacturers seem resultant to adopt it. That's not too unlikely to happen with any new format. Actually, Japanese camera vendors don't seem - in my reception - feel too hot about JPEG-XR either. * Lastly there's Microsoft's JPEG XR (HD Photo), which is more like JPEG than JPEG 2000 in terms of computational burden with compression efficiency comparable to JPEG 2000, but is not yet standardized. It's currently undergoing standardization, however, saying that it can compete with JPEG2000 in terms of compression performance is IMHO highly overstating its powers. In fact, from the tests performed, I somewhere sort it near or sometimes even below baseline JPEG, depending on image content. Note that JPEG-XR is not yet final, so things will hopefully change to the better, and that for proper tests, one also has to check with HDR images from the market JPEG-XR actually targets at, so beware - this is just the status quo. On the other hand, being more critical to MS press releases won't hurt, either. The best you can do is test yourself. Until this is sorted out, RAW remains an important tool for scenes with higher luminosity range, despite its drawbacks. I personally don't use RAW often, but I do sometimes use it. The major drawback is its lack of standardization. The problem seems that camera vendors prefer to bind their customers instead of making images interchangeable. I don't see why JPEG-XR would change their position, but that's all my guesswork. Otherwise, it would have been easy just to approach the JPEG to standardize *some* type of raw format - it is IMHO just not desirable for the vendors. So long, Thomas |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:51:09 +0100, Thomas Richter
wrote in : John Navas schrieb: For first, this news is old news. It dates back to the JPEG meeting in Lausanne this summer. Not that it matters, but the latest developments are much more recent than that -- the article I posted was published early this month. Why JPEG XR is badly needed: The problem is 8-bit (per channel) JPEG. Although non-linearity gives it roughly 11 stop dynamic range, 8-bit luminosity resolution is more limited than many camera sensors (often 10-12 bits). While 8-bit JPEG is fine for scenes with lower luminosity range, more bits are needed for best results with higher luminosity range. This is a major, if not the major, reason to shoot RAW. Probably, probably not. Another issue is - at least in my understanding - that photographers feel that they "loose" possibilities by lossy compression, i.e. image content is gone forever. I wouldn't say "badly" either. There are lots of proper alternatives that just wait to be used, you mentioned them. It all depends. JPEG compression is indeed poor in some cameras with RAW and you're apparently expected to shoot RAW, but is quite good in other cameras. * Another alternative is JPEG 2000, which also has a useful lossless mode, but it's still not widely supported, has EXIF issues, has potential patent issues, and puts a higher computational burden on the camera processor than JPEG. The EXIF issues are currently addressed. Actually, the issue can be solved rather easily as JPEG2000 has more than enough room to include meta-data. The problem is that there are competing solutions, rather than a single standard. You are correct when saying that it has complexity issues, though. The second major error made during its standardization. I think it was probably a fatal flaw. * Yet another alternative would be Adobe DNG as an alternative to proprietary camera RAW, but major camera manufacturers seem resultant to adopt it. That's not too unlikely to happen with any new format. Actually, Japanese camera vendors don't seem - in my reception - feel too hot about JPEG-XR either. Microsoft and HP have considerable market clout, Adobe has voiced support, and inclusion in Vista is a big deal. Samsung is a serious up and comer, and appears to be interested. Likewise Panasonic. Don't know about Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Olympus. It's currently undergoing standardization, however, saying that it can compete with JPEG2000 in terms of compression performance is IMHO highly overstating its powers. In fact, from the tests performed, I somewhere sort it near or sometimes even below baseline JPEG, depending on image content. Note that JPEG-XR is not yet final, so things will hopefully change to the better, and that for proper tests, one also has to check with HDR images from the market JPEG-XR actually targets at, so beware - this is just the status quo. On the other hand, being more critical to MS press releases won't hurt, either. The best you can do is test yourself. I have, and I've been impressed. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
John Navas schrieb:
For first, this news is old news. It dates back to the JPEG meeting in Lausanne this summer. Not that it matters, but the latest developments are much more recent than that -- the article I posted was published early this month. Believe me, I'm sitting at the source. This goes back to last summer, really. The EXIF issues are currently addressed. Actually, the issue can be solved rather easily as JPEG2000 has more than enough room to include meta-data. The problem is that there are competing solutions, rather than a single standard. Ehem. I am talking about a standardized solution, really. (-: You are correct when saying that it has complexity issues, though. The second major error made during its standardization. I think it was probably a fatal flaw. Probably, yes. * Yet another alternative would be Adobe DNG as an alternative to proprietary camera RAW, but major camera manufacturers seem resultant to adopt it. That's not too unlikely to happen with any new format. Actually, Japanese camera vendors don't seem - in my reception - feel too hot about JPEG-XR either. Microsoft and HP have considerable market clout, Adobe has voiced support, and inclusion in Vista is a big deal. Samsung is a serious up and comer, and appears to be interested. Likewise Panasonic. Don't know about Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Olympus. All I know is the voting of the Japanese, Singapure and Korean delegation on this... It's currently undergoing standardization, however, saying that it can compete with JPEG2000 in terms of compression performance is IMHO highly overstating its powers. In fact, from the tests performed, I somewhere sort it near or sometimes even below baseline JPEG, depending on image content. Note that JPEG-XR is not yet final, so things will hopefully change to the better, and that for proper tests, one also has to check with HDR images from the market JPEG-XR actually targets at, so beware - this is just the status quo. On the other hand, being more critical to MS press releases won't hurt, either. The best you can do is test yourself. I have, and I've been impressed. I have, and I've been disappointed - how did you do your comparisons if I may ask? Actually, we made objective and subjective tests (i.e. tested with various mathematical image quality metrics, and also tested with test observers), and the results were pretty much comparable, and - as I said - disappointing. It *did* often preform better than JPEG, but that's not too hard in first place. Comparing with an arithmetic coding enabled JPEG (which is just another option nobody uses in traditional JPEG) showed again different results. The results so far fit to my own visual impression: HDPhoto seems to introduce both blocking and blurring artefacts I don't want to see. When making comparisons, you should make sure you really compress to the same target file size, otherwise you're running into an apples-vs-oranges problem. The "quality" scale of HDPhoto is different from the JPEG one. When really placing images compressed with HDPhoto and JPEG side by side, it really depends on the image content and on personal taste which one is better, or which one is worse. Things change noticably when comparing with more advanced codecs. Anyhow, as I already said earlier, HDPhoto has hopefully enough potential to improve its performance, and we haven't really measured anything beyond 8bpp either, so all of that needs to be considered. All I doing is presenting the current state of affairs, and the state of affairs is complicated, unfortunately. So long, Thomas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
On Nov 27, 11:51 am, Thomas Richter wrote:
John Navas schrieb: [snip] * Lastly there's Microsoft's JPEG XR (HD Photo), which is more like JPEG than JPEG 2000 in terms of computational burden with compression efficiency comparable to JPEG 2000, but is not yet standardized. It's currently undergoing standardization, however, saying that it can compete with JPEG2000 in terms of compression performance is IMHO highly overstating its powers. In fact, from the tests performed, I somewhere sort it near or sometimes even below baseline JPEG, depending on image content. Note that JPEG-XR is not yet final, so things will hopefully change to the better, and that for proper tests, one also has to check with HDR images from the market JPEG-XR actually targets at, so beware - this is just the status quo. On the other hand, being more critical to MS press releases won't hurt, either. The best you can do is test yourself. I have published my own tests at the page below. My conclusion from these (admittedly limited) tests was: "For any given set of quality values, the HD Photo and JPEG 2000 files were about the same size, and significantly smaller than the JPEG file". ("Half the size" would be a fair generalisation, and at that level probably fewer nasty artefacts). The basis for these conclusions is at the following page - I won't repeat them he http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articl...ysis_lossy.htm Until this is sorted out, RAW remains an important tool for scenes with higher luminosity range, despite its drawbacks. I personally don't use RAW often, but I do sometimes use it. The major drawback is its lack of standardization. The problem seems that camera vendors prefer to bind their customers instead of making images interchangeable. I don't see why JPEG-XR would change their position, but that's all my guesswork. Otherwise, it would have been easy just to approach the JPEG to standardize *some* type of raw format - it is IMHO just not desirable for the vendors. There IS an ISO standard raw file format. ISO 12234-2 (TIFF/EP). (It became an ISO standard in 2001, and some manufacturers such as Canon and Nikon based their own raw file formats on it). The problem is that it was never really fit for the purpose of standardised interchange, and it has become out-of-date. (In effect, DNG, also based on that standard, is ISO 12234-2 brought up-to-date and made fit for purpose). ISO are revising ISO 12234-2, and Adobe have given them permission to use the features of DNG in the revision. (Just as they gave ISO permission to use TIFF in the original version of ISO 12234-2). Given that ISO's TC42 WG18 has responsibility for TIFF/EP, it would be diversionary for another working group to "compete" to standardise a raw file format. Far better, surely, for all standards bodies and working groups to concentrate on one standard, especially if it can based on a format (DNG) that is supported in some way by nearly 200 products of various kinds. (I would like to see the revised ISO 12234-2 either BE DNG, or be compatible with DNG sufficiently for products to work with a common subset). http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NEWS: HD Photo to become JPEG XR
On Nov 28, 9:44 am, Thomas Richter wrote:
John Navas schrieb: For first, this news is old news. It dates back to the JPEG meeting in Lausanne this summer. Not that it matters, but the latest developments are much more recent than that -- the article I posted was published early this month. Believe me, I'm sitting at the source. This goes back to last summer, really. [snip] Here is some history: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/hdp/history.htm The work item to standardise it dated to July, subject first to a ballot. (This was the result of an introduction of HD Photo to the group last April). The more recent news (November) is that the ballot decided to go ahead with the standardisation. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation | Paul D. Sullivan | Digital Photography | 14 | January 30th 07 07:34 PM |
digital photo formats Raw, Jpeg, and Tif | cathy | Digital Photography | 5 | September 15th 06 10:52 AM |
Nikon D70 RAW converted to JPEG - jpeg file size 3MB ? 5 MB? | Amit | Digital Photography | 1 | March 16th 06 06:50 PM |
BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight | Lorem Ipsum | Digital Photography | 1 | October 14th 05 05:39 PM |
[NG] news:rec.photo.digital.slr-systems is online | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 104 | November 2nd 04 02:09 PM |