New version of JPEG developed in Leipzig

[Severn Bore]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

 

[Glen Barrington]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

If it could replace raw (impossible, BTW, since there IS no one raw format, but a different format for each camera, we won't get into the OTHER differences between raw and the more "universal" formats! ), it could not BE a jpg, which is an 8 bit, bit mapped format.

You've been sold a phony story written by someone who doesn't understand digital photography.

--
I still like soup. . .
Fine Art Flyover Country:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/2505841@N22

 

[Severn Bore]

See here:

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2014/01/jpeg-standard-91-will-bring-12-bit-color-lossless-compression

 

[Glen Barrington]

See here:

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2014/01/jpeg-standard-91-will-bring-12-bit-color-lossless-compression

Interesting, but the only thing it has in common with jpg is the name. I would suggest that it pretty much has the same features as DNG.

 

[darklamp]

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW?

RAW files are NOT image formats. They cannot be sensibly displayed as an image. They store sensor data, which has to be converted into a format ( like a JPEG ) which can be viewed normally. This process involves processing steps.

JPEG is a format designed to store an image. You cannot recover a RAW file from a JPEG ( or any "cooked" image format ). This is because the processing that converts the sensor data in the RAW file make irreversible changes to the data.

There is a lossless JPEG format called JPEG2000. This is not normally used in photographic or media applications. It is used in some medical systems ( where any loss of data is unacceptable ). If JPEG2000 did not catch on ( and it has 16-bit capability, not 12 ) it's seems unlikely that this new format will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

http://www.photozone.de/jpeg2000-vs-jpeg-vs-tiff

Adobe does have a DNG format which is essentially a general RAW format. There is no other RAW-like standard I know of. Unfortunately DNG is not widely supported by camera makers.

RAW files cannot be replaced by any JPEG-type format precisely because a JPEG is display read data and a RAW is not.

It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

The proposed format you refer to is only 12-bit. This is not enough for all RAW formats ( ignoring other issues ). Many RAW files contain 14-bits per item.

This is strictly a display ready format and not a match for RAW files.

Do not think of RAW files as images. They are sensor data and nothing else.

 

[mosswings]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

You may be referring to JPEG-HDR, which is a backwards-compatible extension to standard 8-bit/channel JPEG but that is capable of storing high dynamic range images:

JPEG XT - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This technical paper referenced in that wikipedia article offers more details:

http://www.anyhere.com/gward/papers/cic05.pdf

JPEG-HDR is in no way a replacement for RAW format, because JPEG-HDR throws away data like all JPEG encodings. It is a lossy storage format, designed for minimum file size for a given quality level. RAW format is the basic data that the camera sensor produces, and must be further processed with demosaicing algorthms before the image data can be viewed. JPEG creates a directly viewable image, like the TIFF format.

JPEG encoding introduces data quality degradation everytime one edits and saves an image, just like repeatedly copying a magnetic tape recording increases the hiss and distortion. RAW editors, like Lightroom, CNX2, et al., do not. It's only when the image is rendered - to JPEG, TIFF, GIF, or other formats, that data loss occur.

Now for most casual photographers, a JPEG-HDR format will probably be all that they need, since they don't do heavy processing, and the format produces better looking files that better match the capabilities of the camera.

 

[Allan Olesen]

The raw data in Canon CR2 files are compressed with lossless JPEG. I think Adobe's DNG are too, but I am not sure.

 

[canonagain123]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

anyone want to replace RAW?

 

[BG454]

The raw data in Canon CR2 files are compressed with lossless JPEG. I think Adobe's DNG are too, but I am not sure.

I've always understood that Canon raw files are based on a modified tiff format (16-bit).

As has already been pointed out, jpg is only 8-bit whereas most recent raw formats are at least 14-bit.

 

[brianric]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

anyone want to replace RAW?

One reason is to eliminate the need of upgrading software to process the file.

 

[canonagain123]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

anyone want to replace RAW?

One reason is to eliminate the need of upgrading software to process the file.

why would you start out with software that can't process the RAW in the first place? There's even free software for RAW conversion out there with options to convert to 8/16bit TIFF, PNG, JPG... Don't be ridiculous. If you want bit depth, shoot in RAW and process the RAW. It takes no time when you get used to the workflow and create profiles/styles.

Come on.

 

[brianric]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

anyone want to replace RAW?

One reason is to eliminate the need of upgrading software to process the file.

why would you start out with software that can't process the RAW in the first place? There's even free software for RAW conversion out there with options to convert to 8/16bit TIFF, PNG, JPG... Don't be ridiculous. If you want bit depth, shoot in RAW and process the RAW. It takes no time when you get used to the workflow and create profiles/styles.

Come on.

Hold on there. I was just giving a reason. I shoot raw 100% of the time. Major complaint on raw is every time a new camera is introduced the raw converters have to be updated. Can you explain why this is?

 

[MaxTux]

... Major complaint on raw is every time a new camera is introduced the raw converters have to be updated. Can you explain why this is?

Because a "raw" file produced by the camera contains not only the red, green and blue intensity at each pixel location, but also values of various parameters required to transform those raw intensity measurements into a reasonable approximation of the hue, saturation and lightness that a human eye would perceive at the location represented by that pixel. And those parameters change, not only whenever a camera manufacturer changes to a new physical sensor device, but also when it finds a better way to perform this transformation in software.

MaxTux

 

[canonagain123]

... Major complaint on raw is every time a new camera is introduced the raw converters have to be updated. Can you explain why this is?

Because a "raw" file produced by the camera contains not only the red, green and blue intensity at each pixel location, but also values of various parameters required to transform those raw intensity measurements into a reasonable approximation of the hue, saturation and lightness that a human eye would perceive at the location represented by that pixel. And those parameters change, not only whenever a camera manufacturer changes to a new physical sensor device, but also when it finds a better way to perform this transformation in software.

MaxTux

And this all is progress that makes the quality gap between RAW and Jpg even greater and gives you even more reason to shoot RAW. Have to be updated? Like you have to buy a new, better camera? Like you have to buy a new better car to replace your 25-year-old model? No, you don't have to do any of those choices, you can choose not to. Why you want to do it is to get more out of shooting RAW.

 

[brianric]

... Major complaint on raw is every time a new camera is introduced the raw converters have to be updated. Can you explain why this is?

Because a "raw" file produced by the camera contains not only the red, green and blue intensity at each pixel location, but also values of various parameters required to transform those raw intensity measurements into a reasonable approximation of the hue, saturation and lightness that a human eye would perceive at the location represented by that pixel. And those parameters change, not only whenever a camera manufacturer changes to a new physical sensor device, but also when it finds a better way to perform this transformation in software.

MaxTux

So what you're saying is when Adobe updates Adobe Raw that even my D700 may have a better way to perform this transformation in software.

 

[Basalite]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

anyone want to replace RAW?

One reason is to eliminate the need of upgrading software to process the file.

If you are using compatible software you never need to upgrade that software to process the file. Only the people that are constantly buying cameras need to worry about such things.

 

[brianric]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

anyone want to replace RAW?

One reason is to eliminate the need of upgrading software to process the file.

If you are using compatible software you never need to upgrade that software to process the file. Only the people that are constantly buying cameras need to worry about such things.

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I'm trying to understand raw. Why, when a new camera comes out, the raw converter needs to be updated? Are you saying in effect a nef file from a D3 is different than an nef file from a D700? Or a nef file from a D4 is different than a nef file from a Df? If so, why?

 

[Glen Barrington]

... Major complaint on raw is every time a new camera is introduced the raw converters have to be updated. Can you explain why this is?

Because a "raw" file produced by the camera contains not only the red, green and blue intensity at each pixel location, but also values of various parameters required to transform those raw intensity measurements into a reasonable approximation of the hue, saturation and lightness that a human eye would perceive at the location represented by that pixel. And those parameters change, not only whenever a camera manufacturer changes to a new physical sensor device, but also when it finds a better way to perform this transformation in software.

MaxTux

And this all is progress that makes the quality gap between RAW and Jpg even greater and gives you even more reason to shoot RAW. Have to be updated? Like you have to buy a new, better camera? Like you have to buy a new better car to replace your 25-year-old model? No, you don't have to do any of those choices, you can choose not to. Why you want to do it is to get more out of shooting RAW.

These are the exact same arguments we heard when dng was introduced. My objection isn't to the concept of what is occurring so much as it is calling it jpg. THAT is pure marketing duplicity.

Personally, if we can come up with a "universal" raw format that can be supported by more than Adobe I would be happy. But from what I've read so far, this "ain't it".

 

[MaxTux]

So what you're saying is when Adobe updates Adobe Raw that even my D700 may have a better way to perform this transformation in software.

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is "no".

When Adobe updates its software, it will typically only include the ability to "understand" the raw file parameters in raw file versions produced by new camera models, it will not, AFAIK, change how the raw file parameters in the raw file versions produced by previously existing camera models are interpreted and processed. It may or may not give you easier or more convenient way to do the processing, but whatever information was placed in the raw file will remain exactly as it was when the camera left the factory.

The motivation for replacing sensor-readings-to-image processing by in-camera software with a different software running on a general-purpose computer is a subject of separate discussion; visited so often on dpreview forums that I believe this thread should steer clear of it.

Maxtux

 

[gollywop]

Hi,

Has anyone heard about a new version of JPEG which is a lossless format and could replace RAW? It seems to be available as an open source project, but I don't know whether it can be used with the current range of editing software.

anyone want to replace RAW?

One reason is to eliminate the need of upgrading software to process the file.

If you are using compatible software you never need to upgrade that software to process the file. Only the people that are constantly buying cameras need to worry about such things.

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I'm trying to understand raw. Why, when a new camera comes out, the raw converter needs to be updated? Are you saying in effect a nef file from a D3 is different than an nef file from a D700? Or a nef file from a D4 is different than a nef file from a Df? If so, why?

The raw file contains the data derived from the electron charges collected on the sensor during the exposure. Different sensors respond differently to the light, and even the same sensor in different cameras can have different AA filters and other elements that make it respond differently. The information on the sensor is then transformed by the read circuitry, the analog amplifiers, the ADC (analog to digital converter), the digital software into the final raw data. All these elements can and do differ from camera to camera. The D300, for example, has a different NEF from the D300s.

It is the job of the raw converter to take these raw data (separate so-called R, G, and B channels) and interpolate (demosaic) them into an image with color RGB pixels. Any differences in any of the elements noted above will require different behavior by the raw converter. The manufacturer's proprietary software, of course, knows just how to do this for each of their cameras. Third-party raw converters must "reverse engineer" the behavior of each new camera to determine just what it is doing.

--
gollywop