Cut the hate already (all directions). You'd think most readers had been personally injured by MS, Apple, etc. Cameras convert to JPEG on the fly but there's only so far that can go and its lousy compared to RAW. This algorithm will be useful if its integrated into cameras so we maybe can avoid the camera-maker-specific RAW (CR2, etc) handling. It's good its coming from MS since the camera makers are less likely to one in on a competing camera makers solution. I bet Thorsten Lempke will have it running in GraphicConverter the same day the code is released.
I have been personally injured by Microsoft. Before I dumped it, I spent thousands of hours cleaning up after their horrible excuse for an OS. Countless reboots, myriad reinstalls, thousands of virus scans. I'll never get those hours back.
"Not to replace RAW, but to interject between it and jpeg. The gap is too wide."
Really, then, what's the point? Are we really doing anything with *jpeg's* that we're unsatisfied with the quality of? There's already an image standard between RAW and jpg - it's called TIFF. It's raster, it's compressed, but it's completely lossless. The only reason we have jpg's is for snapshots and for posting stuff up on the net. And if you just want something to post on the net, you're never gonna notice any difference between a decent quality regular JPG and any "HD" JPG. You're only getting about 110dpi out of most monitors and a color gamut that usually doesn't even approach NTSC, let alone what any camera sensor is capable of.
I just don't understand who this new standard is supposed to be for. It's like McDonald's saying they want to introduce a new drink size to fill the gap between "medium" and "large" called "medium HD". Are there really a lot of people out there that are still thirsty after drinking a medium but for whom a large is just too much?
A computationally more efficient compression than JPEG (and TIFF!!) is important in cameras for several reasons including the write time for images, transfer times over USB2, effective archiving, etc. I shoot to RAW because I want the option of being able to filter later. JPEGs are not good enough (in my view) and severely degrade the image if you apply filters. But shooting to RAW means longer shoot times, fewer shots per card, and slower transfers. This will be adopted in pro cameras first and then make its way to consumer cameras (as an option along with JPEG).
Actually, for those above, HD Photo IS AN ALTERNATIVE to RAW. First, I've made 20 revisions to the same files and not seen compression artifacts. Second, you have 8, 16, or 32bit! options == HDR anyone? 3rd, it's built into Vista and it's supposedly equal in processing time to normal jpeg, which allows for longer in-camera bursts.
The N9 has arrived. What we can say from our first experience is that we're in the presence of a fantastically designed device with a gorgeous AMOLED screen and some highly responsive performance.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Cut the hate already (all directions). You'd think most readers had been personally injured by MS, Apple, etc. Cameras convert to JPEG on the fly but there's only so far that can go and its lousy compared to RAW. This algorithm will be useful if its integrated into cameras so we maybe can avoid the camera-maker-specific RAW (CR2, etc) handling. It's good its coming from MS since the camera makers are less likely to one in on a competing camera makers solution. I bet Thorsten Lempke will have it running in GraphicConverter the same day the code is released.
This is in now way a suitable replacement for RAW.
I have been personally injured by Microsoft. Before I dumped it, I spent thousands of hours cleaning up after their horrible excuse for an OS. Countless reboots, myriad reinstalls, thousands of virus scans. I'll never get those hours back.
Not to replace RAW, but to interject between it and jpeg. The gap is too wide.
"Not to replace RAW, but to interject between it and jpeg. The gap is too wide."
Really, then, what's the point? Are we really doing anything with *jpeg's* that we're unsatisfied with the quality of? There's already an image standard between RAW and jpg - it's called TIFF. It's raster, it's compressed, but it's completely lossless. The only reason we have jpg's is for snapshots and for posting stuff up on the net. And if you just want something to post on the net, you're never gonna notice any difference between a decent quality regular JPG and any "HD" JPG. You're only getting about 110dpi out of most monitors and a color gamut that usually doesn't even approach NTSC, let alone what any camera sensor is capable of.
I just don't understand who this new standard is supposed to be for. It's like McDonald's saying they want to introduce a new drink size to fill the gap between "medium" and "large" called "medium HD". Are there really a lot of people out there that are still thirsty after drinking a medium but for whom a large is just too much?
A computationally more efficient compression than JPEG (and TIFF!!) is important in cameras for several reasons including the write time for images, transfer times over USB2, effective archiving, etc. I shoot to RAW because I want the option of being able to filter later. JPEGs are not good enough (in my view) and severely degrade the image if you apply filters. But shooting to RAW means longer shoot times, fewer shots per card, and slower transfers. This will be adopted in pro cameras first and then make its way to consumer cameras (as an option along with JPEG).
Actually, for those above, HD Photo IS AN ALTERNATIVE to RAW. First, I've made 20 revisions to the same files and not seen compression artifacts. Second, you have 8, 16, or 32bit! options == HDR anyone? 3rd, it's built into Vista and it's supposedly equal in processing time to normal jpeg, which allows for longer in-camera bursts.