User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: new improved JPEG format!

  1. #1
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    new improved JPEG format!

    Not going to improve tomorrow, but hopefully soon, JPG may actually be an option to raw file type in camera.

    Of course it's not going to be as good as or better than tiff/raw/most other image formats, but hopefully one day soon, manufacturers will have the option for this new format type.

    See news here: new JPEG format from The Independent JPEG Group (IJG) at the Leipzig Institute for Applied computer science

    (as I understand it)The LIA is not the same as the Joint Photographic Experts Group(JPEG) group who ratified the JPEG standard, LIA actually write the code libjpg that is the basis of your software's codec package.

    Note too that the page in the link is translated into English(from German??) so there could be a slight loss in translation, but irrespective of this, most the details in the info on this and jpeg in general looks like Greek to me anyhow.

    All I can gather from the current news info, is that the new jpg format will encompass a better colour space awareness(ie. WIDE GAMUT COLOR), so in some ways making aRGB a bit redundant.
    I'd hazard a guess that this may intially add some confusion into the colour space dilemma that many image editor types eventually stumble upon but eventually once we get use to jpg 9.1, colour space will become a non issue... where one will suffice for all(hopefully!).
    The other benefit is the use of 12 bit colour depth for this new format. While it's not going to set the world alight in terms of quality compared to 16 bit, or 32bit/floating point colour depths .. it's still better than 8bit.
    And remembering that jpgs major advantage is not quality, but good quality + reduced file size(important for data transference or storage requirements).
    The other major revelation is the use of a truly lossless compression setting. It woudl be curious to see quality/file size comparisons to tiff/raw files with this too.

    MORE INFO HERE: plus a link to download the new library if you're geeky enough to try it for yourself.
    A word of warning with downloading and trying to use this code. Don't unless you know what you are doing!
    Your current software may break if you try anything 'non standard'.


    I'm assuming that we'll probably see a flurry of activity in the software field with vendors adopting any new format quickly, and hopefully it will then gravitate into the hardware sector within the next few generations of cameras.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    25 Apr 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort, NL
    Posts
    658
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I doubt it'll be a breakthrough. JPEG2000 didn't make it either... Below the original text is a reference to another feature in JPEG9 that may be of equal importance: loss free compression.

    It may be the group is afraid they are bumped by MicroSoft's HD format that later became known as JPEG XR (ISO/IEC 29199-2). That standard was approved by ITU-T in 2009. This new "enhanced" standard does not follow that implementation as far as I know and really doesn't bring anything new on the table compared to JPEG XR (except, maybe, 3D).
    Ciao, Joost

    All feedback is highly appreciated!

  3. #3
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think WebP might be a better long term option https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  4. #4
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  5. #5
    A royal pain in the bum!
    Threadstarter
    arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jev View Post
    I doubt it'll be a breakthrough. JPEG2000 didn't make it either .....

    JP2(and JPX) Sounded promising, but scared most people away due to (possible)licensing issues:

    However, the JPEG committee has acknowledged that undeclared submarine patents may still present a hazard:

    From wikipedia.

    So if there was the possibility that a camera manufacturer was going to be tied to any pricing policy to use JP2 as a format in their hardware, they'll just go with the free option(ie. jpg)
    Widespread uptake was never going to be possible with a limited licensing clause.


    The problem with competing formats is always about consumer indifference, or a lack of education!

    Give them a new file format, and a limited number of apps to view these files, and they tire of the inability to seamlessly use the format.

    The new jpg format is (as I'm understanding it) just an extension of the old .. bringing higher quality with it.
    Manufacturers of software and hardware simply need add the new (free) updated libraries into their software, and the widgets to access the new options in the user interface of the software.

    so your old jpgs still work, your new jpgs can have various quality settings improvements ..... and everything works as it did before.


    WebP and M$'s HD Photo format may well be a better options, but if my preferred image editing/viewing software doesn't support it, I'm not really going to fall over myself to get it working on my PC.
    Again, it comes down to interoperability .. Google/Android and maybe some other platforms natively support WebP, but the user must find the necessary libraries/codecs to have it natively supported in some of their software .. eg. natively in Windows Explorer. A WebP codec is required to do that.

    Same with HD Photo .. can't use it on my Android phone.

    Of course there is always a better option, and given the option to save to WebP instead of jpg in my camera, and the ability to seamlessly open those files on my PC .. I'd do it(knowing it's better quality AND smaller file size than jpg). but this isn't going to happen easily.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •