What about the new JPEG XR format?

[Benjamin]

There has been new cameras everyday, but the file formats that the cameras have been using since last decade have not been changed at all. I have been reading some articles about the new proposed JPEG XR format (HD JPEG). It's said to be more efficient while yields better image quality.


However, by now I'm still confused by how it works technically; I'm not sure about what exactly is the benefit we will get from it in terms of image quality rather than just knowing that it's going to be "better". If such a format has a clear advantage, then how come the cameras now are still using the standard JPEG? Is it just a time issue or is there something that is difficult to implement? I can imagine it's hard to set a new standard format when an existing format has already been widely used as the standard. Can anyone who's knowledgeable enough to know about this explain?


I'm here to learn from you.[]


Thanks.


Ben

[peety3]

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.