Cr4zYH3aD
Well-known member
Id on't believe in it. It's only a format to win the photography world. I'm staying with jpg
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is JPEG / JPG format going to be obsolete soon?
- Thread starter jimlei
- Start date
Ken_5D
Forum Pro
I take it you haven't looked at the link to the MS site for the format.
It includes information to support it on devices and includes code to support the standard on Linux / Unix.. while Windows now supports it.. they have publishes all that is needed to allow anyone to use it.
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
Brunobl
Senior Member
...as too much disk or memoy space.
If memory (or HD) size were to be increased by a factor of 10 (or 100 for that matter) tomorrow, you'd still have that much more space available by using Jpeg (as opposed to uncomressed) files. So what if some new cards can hold 1000 raw images? The same card would hold what, maybe 10000 Jpegs? Someone will always want to have as many files as possible on a card.
--
Best regards,
Bruno Lobo.
http://www.pbase.com/brunobl
If memory (or HD) size were to be increased by a factor of 10 (or 100 for that matter) tomorrow, you'd still have that much more space available by using Jpeg (as opposed to uncomressed) files. So what if some new cards can hold 1000 raw images? The same card would hold what, maybe 10000 Jpegs? Someone will always want to have as many files as possible on a card.
--
Best regards,
Bruno Lobo.
http://www.pbase.com/brunobl
David Mazeau
Senior Member
I didn't know that ... so, thanks. It's interesting.
GodSpeaks
Forum Pro
Sure the SDK is free. But try to use the HDR format in a camera, or commercial software product without paying Micro$oft and you will recieve a visit from their lawyers. Guaranteed.
--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
Are you sure about that? I suggest you listen to this podcast with Bill Crow. (Start at minute 52 if you want to hear just the bits about how open they intend it to be).
http://channel9.msdn.com/media/ju_crow.mp3
Or follow some of the other links at:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/hdp/
Ken_5D
Forum Pro
They wouldn't control them or own them anymore than youre camera maker does. It would be a free standard that anyone can use to create software on any systemt the is able to adapt to to preserver more of your image data.
Of course you can not use it just because you think big companies are bad.. that is your choice.
I use what works.. period.
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
jimlei
Member
Well, if memory are really that cheap, and transfer speed can catch up. I will use 16 bit photos or even uncompressed photos.
Those are a lot easier to work in Photoshop.
If you have a card that store 10000 pictures, you will never use up the space, cos' your camera battery will run out long before your card space. In that case, i will use the space for higher quality pictures. RAW is not user friendly, may TIFF or other format.
--
JimLei
happy user of F707
Those are a lot easier to work in Photoshop.
If you have a card that store 10000 pictures, you will never use up the space, cos' your camera battery will run out long before your card space. In that case, i will use the space for higher quality pictures. RAW is not user friendly, may TIFF or other format.
--
JimLei
happy user of F707rsn48
Veteran Member
I can't remember where I read it but a new format is being pushed because Canon raw is not Nikon raw is not Pentax raw. What is being lobbied especially by the print media is one format as they are tired of working with various raw formats.
--
'There are over a thousand great pics just beyound my camera lens and I've yet to find one.'
Inner Discourse
--
'There are over a thousand great pics just beyound my camera lens and I've yet to find one.'
Inner Discourse
AOKH
Senior Member
Ken_5D
Forum Pro
I think he means Open RAW
http://www.openraw.org/
--
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
No. If he is talking about raw, he does mean DNG.
OpenRAW is group that lobbies for camera manufacturers to publish their raw file formats. They don't give high priority to establishing a common raw file format - which may be why OpenRAW appears to be in terminal decline!
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
jimlei wrote:
[snip]
This is another problem faced by HD Photo - it is squeezed between the ubiquitous JPEG (good enough for many people), and raw which is becoming easier (and potentially good enough for the remaining people). It will be interesting to see if some raw shooters see an advantage in switching to HD Photo.
[snip]
If we are talking about a time when cards will be that big, raw will be user friendly by then. Products like Aperture, Lightroom, and others, handle raw images and JPEGs in a similar way.
This is another problem faced by HD Photo - it is squeezed between the ubiquitous JPEG (good enough for many people), and raw which is becoming easier (and potentially good enough for the remaining people). It will be interesting to see if some raw shooters see an advantage in switching to HD Photo.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
Chuckle!
Would you take the same attitude to someone who proposed any new interface standard? For example, should the people who designed USB 2 be shot? SD cards? CDs? DVDs? (Where would you stop?)
Were you thinking about DNG or HD Photo when you proposed your simple scheme? DNG is hardly new - it was launched over 2.5 years ago. HD Photo was first launched, under a different name, about a year ago.
tbcass
Forum Pro
alanr0
Senior Member
But is that comparison only true at very high compression levels, rather than the 'high quality JPEG' compression level that most decent digicams offer? It may do a better job of compressing a 5 Mpixel image below 100 Kbytes, but the advantage seems to be less clear for the 1 Mbyte or larger file sizes I would be interested in.
But then you end up with larger files than most cameras generate in RAW mode.
Perhaps there are options for lossy compression of 16-bit images? How do these perform - I have not seen any comparisons?
At high compression levels (which I rarely use)
Perhaps, but it does not offer any overwhelming advantages yet. Wait a couple of years and see how many camera manufacturers and software develepers take it up. It will be a while before manufacturers will try to mass market cameras that DON'T have JPEG.
Cheers.
--
Alan Robinson
JamesArnoldhome
Well-known member
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 0
This doesn't make sense. Do many people print directly from the RAW file or send these files for photo finishing (I believe that is what you mean by print media).
I just ask becuase it seems the point of RAW is that you convert to another format for any final treatment before printing or display via another media.
J
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
I have heard that some magazines take raw files. (National Geographic was one I heard mentioned, but I can't confirm that). I don't know whether is what was meant.
You can open a raw file in some products then print them from that product without another file being created. You can do this with Lightroom, for example, and I assume a number of others such as Aperture.
In fact, if you convert a raw file using ACR then open it in Photoshop, it still isn't at that point another file - it is a large matrix of colour values held in Photoshop's memory. Then you can print that and discard the matrix without another file appearing.
So, yes, there is another format. But it may simply be held in memory temporarily, and not be in any formally recognised format.
If, however, another product such as a browser demands JPEG, then of course those JPEGs must be created.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum