MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Image Format  (Read 4236 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 26, 2007, 13:41 »
0
http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-6153730.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news

I really hope their new format succeeds.  That ability to save in 16, 32 bit and control the compression, from high to lossless in one file format is fantastic. 

Mark


« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2007, 13:48 »
0
I don't think that it will ever make much of a dent.

First, because it doesn't really offer much that JPG doesn't already have.

But ultimately, because it isn't free.  MS wants licensing fees.  That won't fly with most other companies, no matter how small, since they can use JPG for free.

« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2007, 13:54 »
0
I don't think that it will ever make much of a dent.

First, because it doesn't really offer much that JPG doesn't already have.

Did you not read the article.  It offers a lot more than jpg.  A wider color space, high bit depth, better compression algorithm, and the option of going to a lossless compression.  jpg was developed before Windows 3.11 in the early 90s.  Don't you think a few new ideas haven't surfaced that are better.  With MS new format I wouldn't mind shooting in HD because of the bit depth would mean you wouldn't loose any info in the shadows and highlights.  You could adjust the exposure as if it where RAW.  I spent a few hundred bucks updating all my software when I bought went from my 10D to my 30D because my software didn't take the new CR2 RAW image.  Shooting in HD means you would get the benefit of RAW and jpg all in one.  Sounds great to me.

Quote
But ultimately, because it isn't free.  MS wants licensing fees.  That won't fly with most other companies, no matter how small, since they can use JPG for free.

MS isn't asking for licensing fees and is begging people to use it.  In fact they are spending their own money to help Adobe develope a plug-in for it.  I doubt they will every ask for money.

Mark

« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2007, 14:36 »
0
MS business concept is just that: first they offer you a product for free, then they charge you for extensions and updates that you need later, when their support for the original version has stopped.

I seem to remember some cases a couple of years ago, when MS suddenly found out that they wanted to charge all camera manufacturers for the use of FAT16 or 32. It's something everybody took for granted as a standard that just existed, but it belongs to MS, and the moment they saw the chance to make money on it, they grabbed it.

What will happen with the new picture format, is that programmers will have to pay license fees that will eventually be paid by the end users: us.

Of course they will do anything to get Adobe in on the deal. It's the only way to secure success for the product. MS can afford to be kind for a couple of years, since they have a few dollars in the bank, but don't fool yourself believing that they are not going to make a profit on this. Of course they will.

They own the operating system (Windows), the web browser (IE), the office package (MS Office), and now they want to control the imaging market as well. The more control MS has, the less competition. The less competition, the easier it is for them to get away with mediocre products (like IE, Outlook and a couple of others).

Unfortunately, capitalism looks very much like communism when it reaches a certain level. It's full control and no choice for us small guys.

Sorry for the rant, but it's my honest opinion.

Jorgen

« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2007, 16:25 »
0
I seem to remember some cases a couple of years ago, when MS suddenly found out that they wanted to charge all camera manufacturers for the use of FAT16 or 32. It's something everybody took for granted as a standard that just existed, but it belongs to MS, and the moment they saw the chance to make money on it, they grabbed it.
I agree that MS doesn't have the greatest track record and many companies and people are skeptical of MS true intentions. 

Quote
What will happen with the new picture format, is that programmers will have to pay license fees that will eventually be paid by the end users: us.
I don't think it will be that easy and MS has to yet to collect any fees associated with FAT16 that I'm aware of.  Lets take a look at the MS Office file formats, which are a closed file format.  MS has no desire to share their office file formats but there are dozens of programs that can read and write all of the office file formats.  MS has made no attempt to sue or gain money from them.  I'm no legal expert but my guess is they would have a hard time extracting any money even if they wanted to.  This format is at the current time an open standard.  So every one will access to it, even if MS changes the standard everything can continue to run off the old one and companies will figure out the new standard just like they do everytime MS changes the office file formats.  But in reality I just don't see them locking it down, because they won't benefit from it.  Unlike other software that they have developed (Office) which they offered initially heavily discounted and now charge an enormous amount of money for it, this isn't a program.  A file format is extremely hard to collect royalties on because companies can write their own algorithms. 

I must admit I'm still a little skeptical and I wish another company had created the standard but without MS creating a new standard is going to be hard.  And jpg needs to go.

Mark


« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2007, 19:54 »
0
It is a very complicated matter, and unpredictable too. One of the main reasons for not succeeding may even be that people don't trust MS for consistency. Most users don't want annual updates that leaves their one year old software with limited usability at least, totally obsolete in the worst cases.

Still, this is one of the things that MS has become famous for. Just look at the number of operating system, all more or less incompatible, particularly with regards to user interface, that they have released since W95 (95, 98, NT3.5, NT4.0, 2000, 2003, ME, XP and now Vista).

I believe that one of the reasons that people still use fax, is that it's a universal standard. It's "stone-age" technology, and the quality is bad to say the least, but it works. Jpeg has many of the same advantages. Just compare it to movie formats, where everybody have managed to establish their own "standard", which are all more or less incompatible. I'm sure one of them is better than the others, but that doesn't help a lot when I need an abundance of media players on my Mac to play 80% of them.

It's maybe a positive sign that MS understood that they had to rename the format from Windows Something to HD, but as long as they are holding the rudder, they will have a hard time convincing the world that this is for the best of all involved. And the camera manufacturers may be the hardest to convince. Just look at Nikon's attempt to protect NEF, and then you have Sony. I'm surprised that they haven't tried to launch their own proprietary format that makes it impossible to view your photos other than on a Sony TV or mobile phone. Maybe even Sony have learned   :D

« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2007, 06:57 »
0
Unfortunately, capitalism looks very much like communism when it reaches a certain level. It's full control and no choice for us small guys.

communism among big guys do you mean  ;)  maybe an oligarchy? or just divide the world's economic sources as corporations do in medieval europe?
Anyway no choice for small guys  ::)


« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2007, 08:48 »
0
Where I live, there's an expression in the local language (Thai), "muan gann". It's usually translated into "same same but different" in English. Something like that.

« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2007, 16:18 »
0
Talking about standised image formats, does anyone use DNG.  I have read a few things on it but most of the real positive stuff is a Adobe publication.  Sounds like it isn't perfect but better than standard RAW.

« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2007, 04:13 »
0
well it might not be so dumb to convert your files to dng when you import them as i think the dng will be supported a lot long than for example the D30 files of canons first DLSR, or the current 1dsMarkII for that matter. (as all cameras have their own raw file format)

so far however, I haven't been bothered to use DNG files.

« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2007, 07:22 »
0
well it might not be so dumb to convert your files to dng when you import them as i think the dng will be supported a lot long than for example the D30 files of canons first DLSR, or the current 1dsMarkII for that matter. (as all cameras have their own raw file format)

That is Adobe reason.  however, there are arguements that you may loss some data on the conversion etc so it not truely RAW.  Does that matter if all programs can read DNG butcant read your CR2 file??

An all Adobe solution doesn't sound bad while Adobbe is at the top of the heap but I know Apple is a bit reluctant to use it.

DNG also uses loseless compression which would be nice on the harddrive!

« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2007, 07:50 »
0
It would have been nice if more manufacturers would do like Pentax have done: let you choose between Pentax RAW and DNG from the camera. Their may be problems with data from certain sensors though, like the Fuji with two sets of sensors.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3238 Views
Last post January 05, 2008, 10:42
by louoates
18 Replies
6856 Views
Last post April 23, 2008, 18:01
by madelaide
14 Replies
8505 Views
Last post October 10, 2009, 03:48
by leaf
0 Replies
2239 Views
Last post October 14, 2010, 08:40
by click_click
7 Replies
2882 Views
Last post January 07, 2019, 18:22
by grejak

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle