Quote:
Originally Posted by sil
I have tons of images and tons stored in fractal compression formats which solved the space and quality issues years ago and now I can't open any of them unless i use Windows 98. Also isnt this new jpg just doing what jpeg2000 promised that nobody really bothers with either? Or just use a jpeg stripper to remove all exif data and save a ton of space without the image data being touched which works great until you need to know the date or camera settings of a photo. speaking from experience.
|
The whole point of using vanilla JPEG is that you're not relying on changing the whole world to support a new image format. That's a very hard thing to do unless you're offering some exciting new functionality rather than an incremental improvement. The other point is that it appears you get either a significant reduction in size or an improvement in quality at no cost if you're an image consumer. You don't have to give up the EXIF data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sil
I would rather see a more robust lossless compression archival format with ongoing future support that the images can be retrieved. At least jpeg is fairly universal and good for its task plus its robust for data recovery where even partial data loss doesnt destroy the whole image unlike most image formats. Then there's PNG, its too early to dredge out my brain  I do like some of the projects Google comes up with, not so much this one is all. |
I'll leave it to you to tell Google that you disagree with their priorities
