Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: New image format

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:15:41 +0900, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

>Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On Nov 22, 10:18 pm, He's Late <betterl...@never.net> wrote:
>>> Doesn't matter, he's way too late. The new HD Photo 16-bit-support
>>> image format is already being supported in programs like PhotoLine
>>> 32. It's already doing all that stuff.
>
>Microsoft has a verrrry bad record of foisting really crappy data
>formats on the world.
>
>Previously they tried to foist a not-very-good HDR image format called
>"scRGB".  Here's a detail description of HDR encodings that discusses
>some of the problems with scRGB:
>
>   http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html
>
>"HD photo" seems to incorporate scRGB in some form, which doesn't bode
>well for its suitability as an HDR encoding...
>
>[Microsoft, of course, doesn't really care, as long as they own the
>patents to everything, they're happy whether or not the result sucks.]
>
>> > Started by Vista, one of the few things that Gates did right.
>>
>> Who are you? And Vista = reeking garbage masked by a sweet-smelling
>> perfume.
>
>Well at least that's one things most people can agree on:  Vista sucks.
>
>-Miles

I seem to have left out some important punctuation. Vista sucks, this is true,
but the HDR Photo(? I was in error in typing earlier) , HDPhoto format (*.hdp
and *.wdp filename extensions) has some very strong advantages, which got its
start through Vista. Full EXIF and IPTC support, wavelet compression, lossless
mode, 16-bit support, among other things. I've been using it once in a while
just to see how well it compresses and retains detail when comparing it to other
compression schemes. Not by using Vista, I won't go near that. By using
PhotoLine 32, a 32/64-bit editor which has already incorporated HDPhoto. PL32's
"for web" optimizer has a 3-spread panel where you can instantly compare
compression formats magnified against one another making it easy to see which is
to your advantage depending on the content of the image. For a new "standard"
that's eventually going to flood the scene, if for no other reason than all
those people who got stuck with Vista and used it, I can think of worse
"standards" that caught on. I'm looking forward to more applications supporting
this HDPhoto format now. I'd be using it today if noting more than a few
browsers supported it.