From a quick look on Wikipedia, there are some good features in it, but it sounds like the licensing still has risks so I'd suspect companies will be hesitant to develop on it.


Cameras are still using the standard because JPEGs can be read "everywhere" (or very close to it). JPEG XR needs a plug-in to be read. You'd need that plug-in anywhere and everywhere you wanted to read a JPEG-XR; you'd either have to hope your customers had JPEG-XR plug-ins or you'd have to convert to JPEG or TIFF or something else more universal in your workflow.


It appears to have some of the advantages of CR2 (option for lossless compression, lossless cardinal rotation, up to 32-bit color depth). Interestingly, RAW (as we Canon folk know it, perhaps I should say CR2) is actually compressed. Between having an embedded JPEG inside the CR2 file and the fact that it's compressed, it's not a consistent file size as you'd get with a non-compressed format.


I'll stick with CR2 and JPEG for now, thanks.