dude, everything has royalty fees. mp3's have royalty fees. even apple charged a royalty fee for firewire (gasp!).
c'mon kerry....you cant say that without giving something
no more than google wants to control all the internets information, or apple wants to control portable media, or intel wants to control all the desktop computers, or your cable company wants to control your tv. Does that make them evil? No, just makes them stay in business.lawsuits? anybody can file a lawsuit. what'syourpoint?
I wonder what other conspiracies he subscribes to. If Apple was so hot then why do they have 2% of the PC market?
I have abandoned my search for Truth and am now looking for a good Fantasy.
I wonder what other conspiracies he subscribes to. If Apple was so hot then why do they have 2% of the PC market?
First of all, dude. Dont try to label me as some nut job, conspiracy freak that just pulls stuff outta my ass. Secondly, do some homework before you post. Apple currently has over 5% market share & rising fast. Yeah, 5% isnt much more than 2%, but get it right.
And if you REALLY wanna get into the REAL reasons on why Microsoft is king right now & Apple currently is so small, we can totally go there. Trust me, it sure as heck isn't because MS is better or are these great innovators in what they do. Allot of things have happened over the last 20-25 years to both companies to get us to this point in time. Remember, the tables were completely turned in the 1980s, so if you want a history lesson on how we got here, I will gladly give you all the dirt surrounding your great Microsoft's rise to power & then the complete dominance>fall>resurgence of Apple.
This new file WMP will not take over JPEG. Its the same way WMA is trying to take over MP3. Not gonna' happen.
But I really dislike Microsoft now. Especially when we invested a huge chunk of our pocket on a new Xbox 360 only to have it fail within one month of purchase. If you're reading this Microsoft, you gotta' stop outsourcing your things and do some quality work especially on this damn Xbox!! (rant over)
hmmm...can't be that, Apple has had right-click menus for many years now...just didn't make their own mouse for it until recently. The real reason is Apple did dumb things in the 90s. Lots of dumb things.
Appel has great respect in my heart because i love Style+design+logo+and it keeps a doc away never used or touched it but i like it
Nice to see new technology i have read somewhere this new standard will have better compression and quality at low size i wonder if there will be any firmware update for camera
May be pics in this new standards can be played in window media player as a picture slide show with music :
Thine is the beauty of light; mine is the song of fire. Thy beauty exalts the heart; my song inspires the soul. Allama Iqbal
Appel has great respect in my heart because i love Style+design+logo+and it keeps a doc away never used or touched it but i like it
This brought a smile to my face...
Appel is the author of a series of rather good technical books on writing compilers, however they are utterly devoid of style... :
Nice to see new technology i have read somewhere this new standard will have better compression and quality at low size i wonder if there will
be any firmware update for camera
I would say, not a chance.
1. No economic incentive, except very maybe for the high end pro-SLRs/Medium format, but their users pretty much all shoot RAW anyhow
2. This system almost certainly based on wavelet decomposition, this is a diferent type of operation from Discrete Cosine Transformation which JPEG uses. Therefore, I would guess, that the CPUs are unlikely to be sufficently optimised for this type of operation. It would be interesting to see if DIGIC II/RIP could actually even do proper concurrent wavelet transforms. Personally I would doubt it.
3. I'm not sure that camera manufacturers would wish to lock Apple+Linux users out of their market. 5% of a customer base (and an extremely vocal 5% at that :) is bad enough, and the bad press it would generate is not something I would enjoy if I was an electronics manufacturer.
May be pics in this new standards can be played in window media player as a picture slide show with music :
One can already do this with JPEG and Windows Movie Maker can't one?
All I know is that the standard for digital images should not rest with any one company. Adobe is doing it right making DNG open, and JPEG is open. These are good. Proprietary formats aimed at taking over the open formats (if that is what is happening) is a bad thing, I don't care how good or efficient the format is.
Entirely agree to the degree that it is open. Actually I quite like the way that Adobe is running DNG, as long as they continue to get the technical stuff right. At least they don't have too many incentives to get it wrong.
and JPEG is open.
Cough, splutter, cough. I wish. Maybe it wouldn't be such a botch job if it was. It's open by accident, not by design, and even then not very open. The 50% of the standard that uses arithmetic coding is about as open as a locked safe with the key at the bottom of the ocean.
Interestingly it's not implemented by anyone either... I wonder why...
I don't care how good or efficient the format is.
In this case, I agree. Esp. with something like digital imaging that I want to be able to get the data out of in 10 years time.
Time will tell how open this standard is.
For what it's worth: I'm still awaiting a response from Microsoft as to my request for the technical details, which they state are available though a slightly tortured request process.
Cough, splutter, cough. I wish. Maybe it wouldn't be such a botch job if it was. It's open by accident, not by design, and even then not very open. The 50% of the standard that uses arithmetic coding is about as open as a locked safe with the key at the bottom of the ocean.
Being a layman, my response is: interesting....it *seems* open. I mean, anyone can use it, AFAIK. But then again, I don't know much!
For what it's worth: I'm still awaiting a response from Microsoft as to my request for the technical details, which they state are available though a slightly tortured request process.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a botch job if it was. It's open by accident, not by design, and even then not very open.
Perhaps this is too harsh. Maybe the committee had other views that I don't appreciate, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. However if I was doing it again now, I would do a few things differently. But it was designed over 10 years ago now, so perhaps I shouldn't judge too harshly.
Being a layman, my response is: interesting....it *seems* open. I mean, anyone can use it, AFAIK.
OK... So a quick summary....
JPEG has no fewer than 11 compression modes, depending on how you count them this value can be a good bit higher :
8 bit, Huffman coded, Baseline or extended and progressive
are roughly the 3 that are commonly used. It is commonly believed that these may be implemented without patent liability. In that sense, by your definition they are 'open'.
I think that JPEG-LS is not generally considered patented, but is now obsolete, PNG is generally used where lossless compression is needed.
JPEG Hierachical, and JPEG Arithmetic coding some have expressed an opinion are covered by various different patents, and are very rarely implemented. (ASAIK I've never seen an implementation)
(Further evidence to my mind that if you want to kill a file format, patenting it is one of the best ways of doing it, but that's a seperate rant)
The standard itself was not originally free, ISO 10918-1 had to be purchased at considerable cost, either from ISO or the ITU. I don't know wheter this is still the case, but Google can now find the standard, but it is possibly a copyright infringment to do so. The US military released something that is remarkably similar to the ITU standard for use as a standard for their image compression systems. If one is very worried about the copyright enfringment (which as far as I can tell, no-one is), this may serve as a suitable source.
It is not open in that it's available for changes (though this is probably a good thing, otherwise anarchy might well prevail). It, and its sister standard JFIF (not managed by ISO/ITU), have remained essentially unchanged since V1.02
So its not as open as one might like, and half of it is not open at all. (Oh and the standard is not exactly light bedtime reading, much of it is written in poorly documented flow-charts, using 2 or 3 letter variable names with a global index... but that's another story : )
I've never figured out where all the hate MS stuff came from. It's basically free and fine working OS. I've never had a problem of any type with any MS product.
I have to take issue with "basically free." PC vendors pay for the license before you buy it. The vendors in turn push the cost onto you when you buy it. Unless you build your own, it can be a pain to find a PC which doesn't come with Windows.
Corporations often pay for licenses twice. For instance, until recently my wife used to manage the group which bought PC's for a large company. They basically had to buy them with cheapest Windows license possible and then buy another license for the version of Windows they actually used.
I have just received the licence request procedure email from Microsoft.
They require a business entity, and seem to require that I produce a digital certificate to verify my identity, though it wasn't crystal clear what they meant by this.
I have now entered the second stage of the 'evaluation agreement' procedure, which I involves them snail mailing me a licence to agree to, apparently they're going to get back to me by email within 3 days to tell me whether they're going to give me the licence...
Comments
I wonder what other conspiracies he subscribes to. If Apple was so hot then why do they have 2% of the PC market?
And if you REALLY wanna get into the REAL reasons on why Microsoft is king right now & Apple currently is so small, we can totally go there. Trust me, it sure as heck isn't because MS is better or are these great innovators in what they do. Allot of things have happened over the last 20-25 years to both companies to get us to this point in time. Remember, the tables were completely turned in the 1980s, so if you want a history lesson on how we got here, I will gladly give you all the dirt surrounding your great Microsoft's rise to power & then the complete dominance>fall>resurgence of Apple.
But I really dislike Microsoft now. Especially when we invested a huge chunk of our pocket on a new Xbox 360 only to have it fail within one month of purchase. If you're reading this Microsoft, you gotta' stop outsourcing your things and do some quality work especially on this damn Xbox!! (rant over)
ummm...Microsoft has right-click ?
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
hmmm...can't be that, Apple has had right-click menus for many years now...just didn't make their own mouse for it until recently. The real reason is Apple did dumb things in the 90s. Lots of dumb things.
Nice to see new technology i have read somewhere this new standard will have better compression and quality at low size i wonder if there will be any firmware update for camera
May be pics in this new standards can be played in window media player as a picture slide show with music
My Gallery
This brought a smile to my face...
Appel is the author of a series of rather good technical books on writing compilers, however they are utterly devoid of style...
Nice to see new technology i have read somewhere this new standard will have better compression and quality at low size i wonder if there will
I would say, not a chance.
1. No economic incentive, except very maybe for the high end pro-SLRs/Medium format, but their users pretty much all shoot RAW anyhow
2. This system almost certainly based on wavelet decomposition, this is a diferent type of operation from Discrete Cosine Transformation which JPEG uses. Therefore, I would guess, that the CPUs are unlikely to be sufficently optimised for this type of operation. It would be interesting to see if DIGIC II/RIP could actually even do proper concurrent wavelet transforms. Personally I would doubt it.
3. I'm not sure that camera manufacturers would wish to lock Apple+Linux users out of their market. 5% of a customer base (and an extremely vocal 5% at that
One can already do this with JPEG and Windows Movie Maker can't one?
SmugSoftware: www.smugtools.com
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Entirely agree to the degree that it is open. Actually I quite like the way that Adobe is running DNG, as long as they continue to get the technical stuff right. At least they don't have too many incentives to get it wrong.
Cough, splutter, cough. I wish. Maybe it wouldn't be such a botch job if it was. It's open by accident, not by design, and even then not very open. The 50% of the standard that uses arithmetic coding is about as open as a locked safe with the key at the bottom of the ocean.
Interestingly it's not implemented by anyone either... I wonder why...
In this case, I agree. Esp. with something like digital imaging that I want to be able to get the data out of in 10 years time.
Time will tell how open this standard is.
For what it's worth: I'm still awaiting a response from Microsoft as to my request for the technical details, which they state are available though a slightly tortured request process.
SmugSoftware: www.smugtools.com
Being a layman, my response is: interesting....it *seems* open. I mean, anyone can use it, AFAIK. But then again, I don't know much!
Keep us posted on that one...
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Perhaps this is too harsh. Maybe the committee had other views that I don't appreciate, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. However if I was doing it again now, I would do a few things differently. But it was designed over 10 years ago now, so perhaps I shouldn't judge too harshly.
SmugSoftware: www.smugtools.com
i meant Select photos and just click .Not to import in WMM and edit lol
My Gallery
OK... So a quick summary....
JPEG has no fewer than 11 compression modes, depending on how you count them this value can be a good bit higher
8 bit, Huffman coded, Baseline or extended and progressive
are roughly the 3 that are commonly used. It is commonly believed that these may be implemented without patent liability. In that sense, by your definition they are 'open'.
I think that JPEG-LS is not generally considered patented, but is now obsolete, PNG is generally used where lossless compression is needed.
JPEG Hierachical, and JPEG Arithmetic coding some have expressed an opinion are covered by various different patents, and are very rarely implemented. (ASAIK I've never seen an implementation)
(Further evidence to my mind that if you want to kill a file format, patenting it is one of the best ways of doing it, but that's a seperate rant)
The standard itself was not originally free, ISO 10918-1 had to be purchased at considerable cost, either from ISO or the ITU. I don't know wheter this is still the case, but Google can now find the standard, but it is possibly a copyright infringment to do so. The US military released something that is remarkably similar to the ITU standard for use as a standard for their image compression systems. If one is very worried about the copyright enfringment (which as far as I can tell, no-one is), this may serve as a suitable source.
It is not open in that it's available for changes (though this is probably a good thing, otherwise anarchy might well prevail). It, and its sister standard JFIF (not managed by ISO/ITU), have remained essentially unchanged since V1.02
So its not as open as one might like, and half of it is not open at all. (Oh and the standard is not exactly light bedtime reading, much of it is written in poorly documented flow-charts, using 2 or 3 letter variable names with a global index... but that's another story
(sarcasm)Yeah right...(/sarcasm)
SmugSoftware: www.smugtools.com
My Gallery
I have to take issue with "basically free." PC vendors pay for the license before you buy it. The vendors in turn push the cost onto you when you buy it. Unless you build your own, it can be a pain to find a PC which doesn't come with Windows.
Corporations often pay for licenses twice. For instance, until recently my wife used to manage the group which bought PC's for a large company. They basically had to buy them with cheapest Windows license possible and then buy another license for the version of Windows they actually used.
I have just received the licence request procedure email from Microsoft.
They require a business entity, and seem to require that I produce a digital certificate to verify my identity, though it wasn't crystal clear what they meant by this.
I have now entered the second stage of the 'evaluation agreement' procedure, which I involves them snail mailing me a licence to agree to, apparently they're going to get back to me by email within 3 days to tell me whether they're going to give me the licence...
And so it continues....
Luke
SmugSoftware: www.smugtools.com