PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft HD Photo considered for standardization by JPEG committee


RobertoOrtiz
08-02-2007, 10:49 PM
Microsoft's ongoing attempt to establish its own photo format as a JPEG alternative took another step forward today when the JPEG standards group agreed to consider HD Photo (originally named Windows Media Photo) as a standard. If microsoft is successful, the new file standard will be known as JPEG XR.

>>LINK<< (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070801-microsoft-hd-photo-considered-for-standardization-by-jpeg-committee.html)

-R

Dias
08-03-2007, 07:49 AM
Microsoft's ongoing attempt to establish its own photo format as a JPEG alternative took another step forward today when the JPEG standards group agreed to consider HD Photo (originally named Windows Media Photo) as a standard. If microsoft is successful, the new file standard will be known as JPEG XR.

>>LINK<< (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070801-microsoft-hd-photo-considered-for-standardization-by-jpeg-committee.html)

-R

I really hope it will, not only digital photography can benefit of it (can be good even for cgtalk geeks since it's has all hdri features but it's more efficient).

JPEG is crap in all senses in 2007 and RAW is not versatile since there are at least 9 different raw proprietary formats (means that if Nikon/Canon/whatever decide not to do codec for their raw format for whateverOS, you have to use crappy jpeg on your D200).

More information about HD Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo

Dias
08-03-2007, 08:23 AM
Btw, if you want to know more about Jpeg/2000 Vs Raw Vs HDPhoto, there is very informative podcast from PixelCorps. :)

http://pixelcorps.tv/twim51

Samo
08-03-2007, 11:58 AM
I really hope it won't. Microsoft ambiguous approach to open source stardards is my main concern.

Dias
08-03-2007, 01:58 PM
I really hope it won't. Microsoft ambiguous approach to open source stardards is my main concern.


There are no "open source standard" definition. :)

Standard, by definition, should be open, which mean that everybody should have the specs in order to implement it in their application. HD-Photo, XPS and new Office formats are all open, and this should be enough for all of us.

Samo
08-04-2007, 07:59 AM
There are no "open source standard" definition. :)

Standard, by definition, should be open, which mean that everybody should have the specs in order to implement it in their application. HD-Photo, XPS and new Office formats are all open, and this should be enough for all of us.

From the same wikipedia article you have got linked:

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software) can therefore make use of the format.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo#_note-1) However, as of Microsoft's July 9, 2007 update, HD Photo is still not among the technologies that Microsoft has listed as being covered by the Open Specification Promise.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo#_note-2)

In addition to the specification itself, Microsoft released the "HD Photo Device Porting Kit" which provides source code and build configuration files for multiple platforms. While the license for this code is designed to encourage broad adoption in products, the license terms specifically prohibit including any of Device Porting Kit's code in products or systems that use strong copyleft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) licensing.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo#_note-3)

2. c. Distribution Restrictions. You may not ... modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or others have the right to modify it.

As a consequence, any implementation that would be suitable for inclusion in a software package distributed under the GNU General Public License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) would need to be written from the HD Photo Bitstream Specification (also assuming Microsoft does cover HD Photo under the Open Specification Promise), although the licenses such as the Open Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) Initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative)-approved BSD license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license) would likely be acceptable.

(http://forums.cgsociety.org/)

So basically Microsoft can do anything they want whenever they wish with this standard. Ok I feel better now. :rolleyes:

Dias
08-04-2007, 12:12 PM
From the same wikipedia article you have got linked:
[/url]

So basically Microsoft can do anything they want whenever they wish with this standard. Ok I feel better now. :rolleyes:


Hmm, you should read what "open standard" means and requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standards

mech7
08-04-2007, 02:40 PM
i read some reviews a while ago where jpeg and png got better quality then wmp

CGTalk Moderation
08-04-2007, 02:40 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.