Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Andrei P — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:14:17 GMT

Back in March I wrote a story on how JPEG is likely to get replaced by HD Photo. I had no idea I'd be so right

Today the Joint Photographic Experts Group approved the HD Photo format as JPEG XR, a new standard that's going to replace the current JPEG in about an year.

I wrote a C# tutorial on how to create your lil app to convert JPEG/PNG/GIF to HD Photo with only a few lines of code. But that's because it's supported by .NET 3.0. For everything else you can get the SDK from Microsoft.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

LaBomba — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:32:16 GMT

How much are those camera's gonna cost though?

General public affordable?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

kettch — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 06:33:24 GMT

LaBomba wrote:

How much are those camera's gonna cost though?

General public affordable?

I don't see any reason why they should cost any different than other cameras.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Xaero_Vincent — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:25:16 GMT

But will it be a fully platform independent standard like JPEG-2000?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

DigitalDud — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:31:39 GMT

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

But will it be a fully platform independent standard like JPEG-2000?

No, JPEG 2000 is truly independent of any platform, because its not on any platform.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Rossj — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:35:21 GMT

DigitalDud wrote:

Xaero_Vincent wrote:
But will it be a fully platform independent standard like JPEG-2000?

No, JPEG 2000 is truly independent of any platform, because its not on any platform.

Except OSX

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

ZippyV — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:28:11 GMT

Let's hope it will get more adopted than JPEG2000 ever was.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Ion Todirel — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:11:05 GMT

all cameras those days sucks, i wont buy one if it doen't have Wi-Fi

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

dentaku — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:07:58 GMT

I tried out the Photoshop filter the second I found out about it and I'm very impressed. I hope it doesn't get rejected by the annoying conspiracy theorists that will not like it because of MS's involvement.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

W3bbo — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:28:16 GMT

ZippyV wrote:

Let's hope it will get more adopted than JPEG2000 ever was.

Why is HD Photo better than JPEG2000?

Is this another case of Not Invented Here by Microsoft?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Tom Servo — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:22:59 GMT

Smaller footprint in regards to memory and computation, but with similar results.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Ray6 — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:40:23 GMT

Great.

Now my new camera is yesterday's model ...

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Ray6 — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:41:19 GMT

dentaku wrote:

I tried out the Photoshop filter the second I found out about it and I'm very impressed. I hope it doesn't get rejected by the annoying conspiracy theorists that will not like it because of MS's involvement.

Well, the 'everything MS says or does is evil' crowd seem to hold a lot of sway at the moment ...

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Bas — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:02:14 GMT

W3bbo wrote:

ZippyV wrote:
Let's hope it will get more adopted than JPEG2000 ever was.

Why is HD Photo better than JPEG2000?

http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/archive/2006/10/20/msu-evaluates-windows-media-photo-vs-jpeg-2000.aspx

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Escamillo — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:01:14 GMT

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

But will it be a fully platform independent standard like JPEG-2000?

http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/archive/2007/07/31/industry-standardization-for-hd-photo.aspx

Bill Crow wrote:

Our goal is that HD Photo becomes JPEG XR, an open standard under the complete control of the JPEG Committee, with royalty-free rights to all required patents granted by Microsoft. Microsoft is actively participating with the JPEG Committee to produce a complete and detailed technical specification enabling anyone to create implementations in any programming language, on any platform and under a wide variety of business models.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

DigitalDud — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:10:18 GMT

W3bbo wrote:

Why is HD Photo better than JPEG2000?

Is this another case of Not Invented Here by Microsoft?

It is very simple to implement on digi cam hardware, whereas JPEG 2000 most certainly is not.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

TimP — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:55:03 GMT

This is a little concerning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo#Licensing

You can use our implementation as long as you don't use it in GPL software. Not going to win a lot of OSS fans with that. As long as Microsoft doesn't pull the same stunt on the specification itself, then OSS folks can write their own. Otherwise I guess it'll have to be reverse engineered like NTFS, SMB, and the ever growing list.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

stevo_ — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:23:10 GMT

Well, it is stated the spec is open as well as the implementation sample..

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Tom Servo — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:36:11 GMT

Usually, there's a reference implementation available from JPEG themselves. Microsoft shouldn't have a say over what license it'll have.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:14:24 GMT

TimP wrote:

You can use our implementation as long as you don't use it in GPL software.

That's an inherent flaw in the GPL. lf they allowed the reference implementation to be GPL, it may prevent others from using it in non-free projects.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

W3bbo — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:18:55 GMT

AndyC wrote:

TimP wrote:

You can use our implementation as long as you don't use it in GPL software.

That's an inherent flaw in the GPL. lf they allowed the reference implementation to be GPL, it may prevent others from using it in non-free projects.

Why couldn't they just BSD it? That's what it's there for....

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Bent Rasmussen — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:20:29 GMT

At last a new and improved version of JPEG that looks like it may get widespread support.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:23:15 GMT

W3bbo wrote:

Why couldn't they just BSD it? That's what it's there for....

The problem with BSD is that it can then be GPL'd, at which point you are back to the original problem.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

YearOfTheLinuxDesktop — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:31:35 GMT

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

But will it be a fully platform independent standard like JPEG-2000?

no, the photos will remain on the camera however you will be able to send them to other cameras that will be able to view them for 3 times or 3 days, whichever comes first

did I also mention that those cameras instead of removing red-eyes will amplify them having everybody look as being possessed by the devil?

waaahhh!!!!

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:13:48 GMT

creditcard wrote:

What is the orginal problem?

Code is released under non-GPL license
Code gets GPL'd
Bug is found
Patch is released under GPL
Original code now has to be patched in a different (and thus potentially less optimal) way for original license to avoid GPL copyright issues.
Repeat from step 2

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

W3bbo — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:19:11 GMT

AndyC wrote:

creditcard wrote:

What is the orginal problem?

Code is released under non-GPL license
Code gets GPL'd
Bug is found
Patch is released under GPL
Original code now has to be patched in a different (and thus potentially less optimal) way for original license to avoid GPL copyright issues.
Repeat from step 2

If code is BSD'd, what makes you think it will be GPL'd?

The GPL is more restrictive than the BSD, and the original code authors are not obligated to implement patches at all.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:22:49 GMT

W3bbo wrote:

If code is BSD'd, what makes you think it will be GPL'd?

The GPL is more restrictive than the BSD, and the original code authors are not obligated to implement patches at all.

Because someone can.

It only takes one person to include it in a GPL project and then you're stuck.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

JonathonW — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:11:21 GMT

AndyC wrote:

TimP wrote:

You can use our implementation as long as you don't use it in GPL software.

That's an inherent flaw in the GPL. lf they allowed the reference implementation to be GPL, it may prevent others from using it in non-free projects.

Isn't that what LGPL is for?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

RoyalSchrubber — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:29:17 GMT

creditcard wrote:

Microsoft so far is the only company or entity I've seen that releases software with these anti-copyleft restrictions. And people wonder why people hate Microsoft so much. Plus, it is a major reason why HD Photo will fail. Firefox is distributed under a copyleft license.

What about Sun? A lot of their software is open source but incompatible with GPL/LGPL. CDDL(Common Development and Distribution License) and MPL(Mozilla Public License) both allow you to reuse code in project licensed under different license, but are incompatible with GPLed software. Perfect to fight GNUs.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Xaero_Vincent — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 03:13:58 GMT

If an LGPL version of the spec is produced, everything will be fine. If not, someone will just write another JPEG XR library with a different, commercial-friendly license.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:24:27 GMT

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:

Isn't that what LGPL is for?

Maybe. But you can't stop someone making LGPL code GPL. The whole nature of to GPL is such that all "compatible" licenses allow their code to become GPL instead (and then have to stay that way). It's why people have used the word "viral" to describe it at various times.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:26:49 GMT

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

If an LGPL version of the spec is produced, everything will be fine. If not, someone will just write another JPEG XR library with a different, commercial-friendly license.

The spec is just a spec, you can do with it as you wish. It's just the provided reference implementation that cannot be GPL'd. I'm sure someone will write a GPL implementation at some point.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Escamillo — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:55:22 GMT

creditcard wrote:

AndyC wrote:

creditcard wrote:

What is the orginal problem?

Code is released under non-GPL license
Code gets GPL'd
Bug is found
Patch is released under GPL
Original code now has to be patched in a different (and thus potentially less optimal) way for original license to avoid GPL copyright issues.
Repeat from step 2

Copyright typically covers the specific implementation and not how it was implemented. What you are thinking of is patents.

Microsoft so far is the only company or entity I've seen that releases software with these anti-copyleft restrictions. And people wonder why people hate Microsoft so much. Plus, it is a major reason why HD Photo will fail. Firefox and Safari (Webkit) are distributed under a copyleft license.

Huh?
The only ones that "hate Microsoft" for not releasing GPL-compatible code are the wackos that worship GPL as the one license to rule them all.

Why don't you address the scenario that was put forward above?
Let's say that Microsoft's HD Photo implementation is released under a GPL-compatible fashion, someone GPLs the code, a bug is found, a fix is made in GPL code. Then the original code could not be fixed optimally if it is to be used by those that don't want anything to do with GPL. Microsoft couldn't even use an optimally fixed version of its own code in their own products.

You wackos are so damn hypocritical. You promote the GPL as a way to prevent "evil" closed source companies from appropriating code, enhancing it for their own purposes, releasing products based on the enhancements for use by the public, but not releasing the enhancements back to the "community" right?

But your solution is to promote a license (GPL) by which bug fixes and enhancements cannot be used by anyone that doesn't GPL their entire software stack. You don't release your enhancements to the non-GPL world, even if the original code came from a non-GPL source. Your self-righteousness blinds you to your selfishness and hypocrisy. And then you have the gall to complain whenever anyone doesn't want to jump through GPL's hoops.

I've almost never flamed anyone on this site, but I am so sick of the holier-than-thou, gimmee, gimmee, gimmee spoiled brat attitude of your kind. The spec is open, so implement it your own damn self. You guys think you're God's gift to programming anyway, so you shouldn't need Microsoft's code at all.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:31:02 GMT

creditcard wrote:

Copyright typically covers the specific implementation and not how it was implemented. What you are thinking of is patents.

Um, no. I'm well aware of the difference. We're talking here about a specific Microsoft provided implementation, not the spec as a whole.

creditcard wrote:

Microsoft so far is the only company or entity I've seen that releases software with these anti-copyleft restrictions. And people wonder why people hate Microsoft so much. Plus, it is a major reason why HD Photo will fail. Firefox and Safari (Webkit) are distributed under a copyleft license.

Except it is under a copyleft license. It's just not a GPL compatible one because, quite frankly, nothing but the GPL is entirely compatible with the GPL.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

feelite — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:03:06 GMT

i've been doing a paper on JPEG XR (previously known as Windows Media Photo and then HD Photo)

Apparently, the graphic quality is not as good as JPEG 2000 at very high compression. The performance (in terms of compression time) is only slightly better than JPEG 2000.

You can read the full paper (in draft) here (hosted at Skydrive). You can skip to section 3 for the evaluation part.

Do let me know your comments or any independent testing numbers.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:11:14 GMT

creditcard wrote:

AndyC seems to be worried that someone would fork the library as a GPL library and make it better then Microsoft's own implementation. However one thing he is missing is that someone could make a GPL implementation and it could very well be better then Microsoft's implementation using the specs. I guess Microsoft missed an important loophole.

Ok, so you still don't get it. Let's try again:

If a reference implementation falls under a GPL license it becomes unusable to anyone not using the GPL. This makes it useless as a reference implementation.

Hence it needs to be protected against that and released under a more permissive license. Which is what Microsoft have done.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

TimP — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:04:44 GMT

AndyC wrote:

creditcard wrote:

AndyC seems to be worried that someone would fork the library as a GPL library and make it better then Microsoft's own implementation. However one thing he is missing is that someone could make a GPL implementation and it could very well be better then Microsoft's implementation using the specs. I guess Microsoft missed an important loophole.

Ok, so you still don't get it. Let's try again:

If a reference implementation falls under a GPL license it becomes unusable to anyone not using the GPL. This makes it useless as a reference implementation.

Hence it needs to be protected against that and released under a more permissive license. Which is what Microsoft have done.

That's why the BSD license would be an ideal license.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Tom Servo — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:13:00 GMT

Isn't Firefox licensed as MPL? What prevents them from implementing JPEG XR?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:16:19 GMT

TimP wrote:

That's why the BSD license would be an ideal license.

Is there an echo in here?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

PaoloM — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:29:42 GMT

Tom Servo wrote:

Isn't Firefox licensed as MPL? What prevents them from implementing JPEG XR?

Absolutely nothing. Especially if they want to go with their own customized implementation.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Tom Servo — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:36:51 GMT

PaoloM wrote:

Tom Servo wrote:
Isn't Firefox licensed as MPL? What prevents them from implementing JPEG XR?

Absolutely nothing. Especially if they want to go with their own customized implementation.

Well, Microsoft is obviously going to hammer this as soon as possible into IE, alone for driving adoption and since it's their own stuff, once it's fully made into a standard.

Mozilla has to jump once that happened.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

Tom Servo — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:38:29 GMT

Well, they'll never learn, will they?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:44:07 GMT

creditcard wrote:

I don't know who is advocating Microsoft release a reference implementation under the GPL, certainly not me. I however, advocate licensing it under the BSD license, that way it can be used by any application, not just ones that are proprietary/closed source.

But the BSD license doesn't actually guarantee that. And while the BSD license may be considered "compatible" with the GPL, the GPL is most definitely not compatible with the spirit of the BSD license.

Of course, in an ideal world anyone who spotted a flaw in the code would share any fix under the BSD license too and all would be fine. Do you really think the Richard Stallman's of this world would do that if they knew the code was in Microsoft Office? Or would they take the opportunity to try and claim that Office needed to be released under GPL?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

PaoloM — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:02:32 GMT

Tom Servo wrote:

Well, they'll never learn, will they?

The GPL zealots? No, they don't, you're right.

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

TimP — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:53:30 GMT

AndyC wrote:

TimP wrote:

That's why the BSD license would be an ideal license.

Is there an echo in here?

Yes, it seems you can't hear it. You say that if they fix a bug in a GPL'd fork, MS can't get at it. Are you that doubtful of Microsoft's talent being able to fix the problem on their own? Basically you're worried that GPL folks will do a better job of handling Microsoft's code for Microsoft's specification than Microsoft?

Coffeehouse - The JPEG group approved HD Photo as a new standard

AndyC — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:33:19 GMT

TimP wrote:

Yes, it seems you can't hear it. You say that if they fix a bug in a GPL'd fork, MS can't get at it. Are you that doubtful of Microsoft's talent being able to fix the problem on their own?

Imagine that "bug" was replacing a "less than" with a "less than or equals"

Now imagine it weren't just Microsoft, but hundreds of software vendors who had implemented it in non-GPL code. It's a very real issue and one that absolutely needs protecting against.