BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight

Discussion in 'Photoshop Tutorials' started by +/-, Sep 30, 2005.

  1. +/-

    Alturas Guest

    Yes, what is the deal with JPEG2000? Write times too slow or
    something? It's nearly 2006 and we still don't see it in digicams.

    Alturas, Oct 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Moreover, the math in the quote leaves much to be desired. A 10 megabyte
    While it may be true that MRIs are not in color, I've been around hospital
    imaging equipment enough over the last couple of years to have noticed quite
    a bit of use of color on the various scanning equipment. It just ain't a
    black & white world anymore (although I believe the "color" is artificially
    added as a visual aid, as I suspect most of the sensors are probably just
    recording essentially shades of gray).

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    Mike Jacoubowsky, Oct 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap,The notion that any technological improvement necessarily heralds the end
    for that which went before it is usually flawed because it ignores the
    influence of marketing and commercial pressures.

    Many years ago in the UK (and maybe elsewhere) we had two formats for video
    recordings - VHS and Betamax. Over the course of a few years, VHS
    eventually displaced Betamax and the latter sank without trace. Was this
    because VHS was better? No. In fact many people in the know say that
    Betamax was actually the technically superior. It was a marketing victory.
    The VHS camp managed to attract more manufacturers to their cause and
    eventually it became the de-facto standard.

    A similar thing happened with sattelite TV broadcasting standards about ten
    years later.

    In the case of compression algorithms IMHO it is already too late to make a
    significant dent in the grip which JPEG has on the market. The new
    compression algorithm may be the best thing since sliced bread but that
    alone won't help it. There is an enormous amount of hardware and software
    out there which is tied to JPEG and JPEG is cemented in the semi-technical
    person's mind as "the" standard for photographic image compression.

    It will take more than a good algorithm to displace it. It will take
    commercial pressure and probably a not inconsiderable amount of money before
    it can make any headway.

    Keith Sheppard, Oct 3, 2005
  4. +/-

    mark Guest

    mark, Oct 3, 2005
  5. +/-

    mark Guest

    mark, Oct 3, 2005
  6. +/-

    Chris Brown Guest

    Not this old chestnut. In general you're right about superior technology not
    necessarilly leading to marketing success, but Beta vs VHS is a really bad
    example of that. VHS was superior where it mattered - it had the ability to
    store a full length movie at a time when Beta didn't.

    Arguably the best technology was actually the third standard, the one nobody
    ever mentions, Philips V2000.
    Chris Brown, Oct 3, 2005
  7. Today Keith Sheppard spoke these views with conviction for
    everyone's edification:
    VHS vs. Beta was world-wide. What really killed Beta was
    Sony's inability to get enough tape into the smaller cartridge
    to compete with VHS SLP 6-hour recordings. The first Betamax
    units could only record for an hour, and I think the longest
    time I ever used was still around 4 or so.

    I've also heard the quality issue, but personally never saw
    better quality with my many Betamax recorders before I was
    forced to switch to VHS. I've still got one of the last Sony
    units, which I used to occasionally look at some 100 old tapes
    of movies off cable TV.
    I agree. Another good example is MP3 for audio. I lost track
    of the standard when it went past MP15, but there's no music
    nor any players that I know of that will recognize the newer
    formats, and I also don't know or understand what is better
    about them.

    There's an old advertising saying that claims "nobody gets it
    until everybody wants it". That said, your thesis is right on
    the mark. It'll be really tough for even a clearly superior
    compression algorithm to break through the tremendous
    installed base of graphics apps that wouldn't be able to read
    it for a couple of versions, if the company were even still in
    business to update legacy software.
    All Things Mopar, Oct 3, 2005
  8. +/-

    ggull Guest

    Isn't the problem that someone tied up the idea of wavelet compression with
    patents, meaning everyone else would have to pay to play (and making a
    horrible mess of it all even beyond the cost)? See how intellectual
    property law encourages innovation ;-)?
    ggull, Oct 3, 2005
  9. Today ggull spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
    Yes, it actually /does/ encourage innovation by "encouraging"
    new inventors to create an even more superior version of a
    commodity. As has happened countless times in history, the
    original patented device has been eclipsed specifically
    /because/ someone was encourage to try harder.

    And, to the original inventor, don't they deserve the 20 years
    granted to a new patent holder to commercially profit from their

    So, nobody has to "pay to play", unless they get to the party
    too late to get people to buy their better mousetrap. So, if you
    snooze, you lose.
    All Things Mopar, Oct 3, 2005
  10. +/-

    Bill Funk Guest

    My understanding is that Betamax had an advantage in specs 'on paper',
    but on the average TV, very few could see a difference.
    When VHS doubled their recording time, and Sony refused to follow
    suit, Betamax started its downhill slide. More people wanted longer
    tapes than a tape that was so little better that they couldn't see the
    Bill Funk, Oct 3, 2005
  11. +/-

    Chris Brown Guest

    Demonstrably hasn't happened with software patents. There are areas where
    research has basically stopped dead (e.g. text compression), because
    everybody is scared of getting sued if they come up with something new. You
    don't even need to win in court if you're a patent holder - just the threat
    of a long lawsuit which the innvoator can't afford to fight, and is
    ultimately a lottery anyway is generally sufficient to make people settle.
    Software patents are no-more than a legalised protection racket.
    Chris Brown, Oct 3, 2005
  12. +/-

    toby Guest

    "Intellectual property" law is not universally considered a meaningful
    term. It's part of the Newspeak arsenal of patent lobbyists.
    And if *they* claim a patent on *that*, we're back to square zero.
    None of those points are germane to the *software* patent debate. See:
    toby, Oct 3, 2005
  13. Today Chris Brown spoke these views with conviction for
    everyone's edification:
    I'm still not convinced except when the Feds incorrectly grant
    a patent, as they did for M$'s double-clicking. Double-
    clicking was first invented by Xerox for the ill-fated Star,
    then "stolen" and adapted to a single button mouse by Apple,
    then later stolen again by Bill Gates, who also stole the
    entire idea for the Windoze GUI. How F__k double-clicking is
    an "invention", when it is really a somewhat sophisticated
    timing loop, is beyond me.

    (I commented jokingly a while back somewhere else that
    Logitech and Apple are now paying Bill to use double-clicking
    on their mice).

    If we go back to the maybe-OT comparison of VHS to Beta, that
    was clearly the result of trying to get around Sony's patents.

    But, as you commented on software, there is precious little
    that can actually be patented, as it is almost always an
    expression of an idea, and not an idea itself or an invention.
    I don't know but could believe that algorithms can be patented
    without ever demonstrating that they even work, as there is no
    requirement for an invention to do what it claims to.

    But, the original JPEG, if it is patented by the group from
    which it derives it name at all, must be right at or maybe
    even beyond the 20-year protection limit. It also seems far
    fetched to me that purveyors of graphics software have been
    paying royalties all this time.

    I agree with you that protracted litigation, or the threat of
    it, is enough to drive off all but the wealthiest and most
    tenacious inventors. M$ succeeded very well against both Apple
    and Netscape, to name just two pathological examples.

    Finally, I'm not an attorney nor involved in intellectual
    property protection nor an active programmer for the last 10
    years, so I'd appreciate it if you could cite some (in)famous
    or well-known software patents that are for the algorithm, and
    not the code? Also, do any of the legal beagles here know if
    the original JPEG specification was or wasn't copyrighted or
    patented, or whether it was intentionally placed in the public
    domain to speed up adoption?
    All Things Mopar, Oct 3, 2005
  14. Today toby spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
    It is an entirely both appropriate and universally accepted
    term, and attorneys and entire law offices specialize in it.
    Lawyers are employed by anyone producing anything in order to
    find the best way to protect themselves, other than trying to
    sweep everything under the "trade secret" crap, which is
    doomed to failure by definition.

    And, I personally dealt with the Patent and Copyright
    attorneys for a decade during the latter days of my employment
    at Chrysler, and I /know/ that they vigorously defended
    Chrysler's "intellectual property", even in the courts of
    foreign countries.

    About the only major suit they failed to win was in trying to
    defend the JeepĀ® Registered Trademark 7-bar vertical grille
    against General Motors for the Hummer. And, that was because
    the defendent discovered that Willys-Overland had produced a
    very small number of post-war Jeeps with 8 and 9 bar grilles.
    But, this isn't germaine to software...
    No! That is /precisely/ what advances the state-of-the-art in
    all "soft" and "hard" commodoties. Were it not for "need being
    the mother of invention", science would not advance.
    That web site looks like it was posted by a pundit, not an
    attorney. Even the domain name is suspect, "philosphy". Now,
    cite some real examples pro or con to support your assertion.
    There's no point in me trying to do that, as it is impossible
    to prove a null or negative hypothesis, and highly unlike to
    change your mind.
    All Things Mopar, Oct 3, 2005
  15. +/-

    Chris Brown Guest

    Hardly - it's gerenally accepted as being a short term for patent, copyright
    and trademark law.
    Chris Brown, Oct 3, 2005
  16. +/-

    toby Guest

    Does any of that make it less bureaucratic Newspeak?

    I guess you haven't heard of Richard Stallman.

    toby, Oct 3, 2005
  17. Quite so, and for designs.

    The expression has been in use for over 150 years, viz:
    "Only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the
    mind, productions and interests as much a man's own as the wheat he
    cultivates.". Source: Woodbury & Minot - Reports of Cases Circuit Court of
    U.S., 1847.

    The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), established in 1967, is
    an agency of the United Nations and has 182 nations as members. It's hard to
    get more universal than that.

    It sounds as though the news of the term's wide acceptance has been a little
    slow in reaching the Antipodes. :cool:
    Roger Whitehead, Oct 3, 2005
  18. +/-

    toby Guest

    However, it is also used to deliberately blur the distinctions between
    those arenas.
    I did not know the coinage was as old as that. Thanks.
    I did say 'not universally'. Here's a Northern hemisphere opinion:
    toby, Oct 3, 2005
  19. Today toby spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
    Nope. Who he?
    All Things Mopar, Oct 3, 2005
  20. One might observe that patent offices have a clear economic interest
    in granting patents, but less so in actually understanding them.
    Software patents are for the algorithm and not the code. Code is
    protected by copyright instead.

    LZW is the best known example, being the algorithm behind the GIF file
    format. More details:
    The JPEG specification is copyrighted, but copyright on a
    specification does not in general preclude implementing it.

    The algorithms required to implement baseline JPEG are (believed to
    be) patent-unencumbered, and this is deliberate.
    Richard Kettlewell, Oct 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.