More detail and less loss ina compressed file sounds interesting. However, all our cameras and software will have to be updated. Introductin date is stated to be 2008. There's a lot of catch up for the rest of the industry to do if this is to really take place. Now if you shoot in RAW it doesn't matter. However, it does raise the worry of JEPG or RAW both being obsolete and all our "older" images being unaccessable by newer software.
I feel this is a very bad proposal. Microsoft owns the specification and requires licensing for parts of it. While they claim it will be an open format, requiring licensing makes it closed to only licensees. And Microsoft can change it at any time. And why put the word "Windows" in an "open" specification? Read my blog entry on MySpace to learn more about why I feel this is a bad proposal.
That's typical Microsoft. They try to bully their way into a market and if it doesn't work they just walk away. I doubt this one will fly, there's too many players (industry groups, hardware and software manufacturers etc.)
What I find amusing about the whole thing is that they are concerned abotu shaving a few kilobytes off web images but have no problem selling a bloated resource-hungry operating system that forces users to continually buy new hardware upgrades to keep up.
Jim, you're right, but Microsoft is leading the pack in my opinion. Also other companies are not usually as predatory when it comes to profiting from generic specifications. CompuServe owns the GIF spec, Adobe owns the PDF spec, Sun owns the Java spec etc. but they don't charge license fees to implement or use them, realizing that in the end more standardization is better for everyone.
JPEG is a standard created by an industry working group which in my opinion is a much betetr model than having any one company own the specs.
Many may remember Bill Gates declaring the internet was "just a fad' only to spend the nest couple of years not only trying to recover lost ground, but make the internet Microsoft compliant. Nikon encrypting the white balance doesn't bode well either.
While we would all welcome superior imaging technology, that it may not be backwards compatible or locked in proprietary or intellectual property rights, is a matter end users will need be alert about.
It's the J that make's jpeg work so well. I know Microsoft makes bullet proof, infintely user-friendly, transportable and elegant products, but I'd rather have a bunch of guys in a joint figure out an image-file lingua franca.
It's is getting easier and easier to deal with large files - in every regard. I have to believe that anything less than a factor of 10 or 100 decrease in file size will go unnoticed by most.
Knock yourself out Microsoft. No, really, knock yourself out!
Discussion
9 replieshttp://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6076650.html?part=rss&tag=6076650&subj=news
Dave
What I find amusing about the whole thing is that they are concerned abotu shaving a few kilobytes off web images but have no problem selling a bloated resource-hungry operating system that forces users to continually buy new hardware upgrades to keep up.
Guy
It is not just Microsoft. It is everyone that writes software with feature bloat as well as all the digital technology nowadays.
JPEG is a standard created by an industry working group which in my opinion is a much betetr model than having any one company own the specs.
Guy
While we would all welcome superior imaging technology, that it may not be backwards compatible or locked in proprietary or intellectual property rights, is a matter end users will need be alert about.
Dave
It's is getting easier and easier to deal with large files - in every regard. I have to believe that anything less than a factor of 10 or 100 decrease in file size will go unnoticed by most.
Knock yourself out Microsoft. No, really, knock yourself out!
Pete D.