This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > October 2005 > BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight
|
|
|
| Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap, no
compromise technology. Young genius about to rock the DI world.
WHAT'S NEXT
Honey, I Shrunk the JPEG
By Shailaja Neelakantan, September 21, 2005
BUSINESS 2.0
If downloading digital photos stalls your PC, spare a thought for the
data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60 requests
every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes apiece, the
enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
Enter 25-year-old Arvind Thiagarajan, co-founder of Singapore-based
startup MatrixView, who wants to revolutionize digital imaging. The
data-compression algorithm he invented shrinks images into a format called a
MatrixView Universal, or MVU, which is 15 to 300 percent smaller than a
JPEG. But unlike a JPEG, which omits details, an MVU is as precise as the
original. "Data loss is unacceptable in medical diagnosis," Thiagarajan
says. That's why the startup is focusing on health care first. A well-known
hospital in Bangalore is using the technology, and MatrixView plans to ink
deals in the coming year with several Fortune 100 health-care companies in
the United States. MatrixView is also targeting other subsets of the $9
billion U.S. digital-imaging market. Right now it's negotiating with
chipmakers to embed the technology in cameras and fit more files on storage
cards. MRIs today, vacation snaps tomorrow.
http://www.business2.com/b2/web/art...1106847,00.html
http://www.matrixview.com/
Download white paper:
http://matrixview.com/files/ABO%20white%20paper.pdf
| |
| Matt Ion 2005-09-30, 3:14 am |
| Unless it's freely available to all developers, and doesn't include some
cockeyed protection scheme that makes it difficult for one to
backup/edit/copy one's own pictures, it'll never fly for the mass market.
+/- wrote:
> Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap, no
> compromise technology. Young genius about to rock the DI world.
>
> WHAT'S NEXT
> Honey, I Shrunk the JPEG
> By Shailaja Neelakantan, September 21, 2005
> BUSINESS 2.0
>
> If downloading digital photos stalls your PC, spare a thought for the
> data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60 requests
> every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes apiece, the
> enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
>
> Enter 25-year-old Arvind Thiagarajan, co-founder of Singapore-based
> startup MatrixView, who wants to revolutionize digital imaging. The
> data-compression algorithm he invented shrinks images into a format called a
> MatrixView Universal, or MVU, which is 15 to 300 percent smaller than a
> JPEG. But unlike a JPEG, which omits details, an MVU is as precise as the
> original. "Data loss is unacceptable in medical diagnosis," Thiagarajan
> says. That's why the startup is focusing on health care first. A well-known
> hospital in Bangalore is using the technology, and MatrixView plans to ink
> deals in the coming year with several Fortune 100 health-care companies in
> the United States. MatrixView is also targeting other subsets of the $9
> billion U.S. digital-imaging market. Right now it's negotiating with
> chipmakers to embed the technology in cameras and fit more files on storage
> cards. MRIs today, vacation snaps tomorrow.
>
> http://www.business2.com/b2/web/art...1106847,00.html
>
> http://www.matrixview.com/
>
> Download white paper:
> http://matrixview.com/files/ABO%20white%20paper.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0539-2, 09/29/2005
Tested on: 9/29/2005 11:16:05 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
| |
| Randy Berbaum 2005-09-30, 3:14 am |
| In rec.photo.digital Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:
: Unless it's freely available to all developers, and doesn't include some
: cockeyed protection scheme that makes it difficult for one to
: backup/edit/copy one's own pictures, it'll never fly for the mass market.
Also nothing is said about processing time. If a sufficiently complex
program is run, it is very possible to compress any photo much further
than any currently used photo image. For the compression of an x-ray or
MRI is "fast" if the result shows up in a few min while the dr and patient
are walking back to the dr's office. But how many of us are going to be
happy waiting 2 min between shots on our digital camera, just to save 1/3
to 1/2 the memory space. Personally I think that I would rather purchase
more memory than to have to wait several min (or even 10's of seconds)
between normal shots. JMHO
Now, if such a program were developed for archiving photos in more compact
but lossless forms, It could have a big impact.
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
| |
| Mike Henley 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
|
Matt Ion wrote:
> Unless it's freely available to all developers, and doesn't include some
> cockeyed protection scheme that makes it difficult for one to
> backup/edit/copy one's own pictures, it'll never fly for the mass market.
>
Indeed, Jpeg is an industrywide standard by a joint ISO/IEC and ITU-T
committee.
AMD is now making 5Ghz processors. Broadband is now being offered at
24Mb. So hardware-bandwidth is no issue. Last thing the industry will
do is entrust its data formats to a proprietary one from an obscure
upstart.
| |
| Trevor 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| <big snip>
> Download white paper:
> http://matrixview.com/files/ABO%20white%20paper.pdf
>
data formats are like standards - there are so many to choose from. I woudl
rather put my trust in JPEG2000, but that's taking its time getting to the
masses - anyone up to date on the Lizardtech claims?
| |
| Ron Hunter 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| +/- wrote:
> Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap, no
> compromise technology. Young genius about to rock the DI world.
>
> WHAT'S NEXT
> Honey, I Shrunk the JPEG
> By Shailaja Neelakantan, September 21, 2005
> BUSINESS 2.0
>
> If downloading digital photos stalls your PC, spare a thought for the
> data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60 requests
> every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes apiece, the
> enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
>
> Enter 25-year-old Arvind Thiagarajan, co-founder of Singapore-based
> startup MatrixView, who wants to revolutionize digital imaging. The
> data-compression algorithm he invented shrinks images into a format called a
> MatrixView Universal, or MVU, which is 15 to 300 percent smaller than a
> JPEG. But unlike a JPEG, which omits details, an MVU is as precise as the
> original. "Data loss is unacceptable in medical diagnosis," Thiagarajan
> says. That's why the startup is focusing on health care first. A well-known
> hospital in Bangalore is using the technology, and MatrixView plans to ink
> deals in the coming year with several Fortune 100 health-care companies in
> the United States. MatrixView is also targeting other subsets of the $9
> billion U.S. digital-imaging market. Right now it's negotiating with
> chipmakers to embed the technology in cameras and fit more files on storage
> cards. MRIs today, vacation snaps tomorrow.
>
> http://www.business2.com/b2/web/art...1106847,00.html
>
> http://www.matrixview.com/
>
> Download white paper:
> http://matrixview.com/files/ABO%20white%20paper.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
Well, let me know with Irfanview has it, and PhotoShop adopts it, THEN I
will be impressed.
BTW, NO MENTION was made of color!
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
| |
| Nicholas Sherlock 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| +/- wrote:
> Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap, no
> compromise technology. Young genius about to rock the DI world.
>
My bullshit senses are tingling.
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
| |
| Ron Hunter 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| Randy Berbaum wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:
> : Unless it's freely available to all developers, and doesn't include some
> : cockeyed protection scheme that makes it difficult for one to
> : backup/edit/copy one's own pictures, it'll never fly for the mass market.
>
> Also nothing is said about processing time. If a sufficiently complex
> program is run, it is very possible to compress any photo much further
> than any currently used photo image. For the compression of an x-ray or
> MRI is "fast" if the result shows up in a few min while the dr and patient
> are walking back to the dr's office. But how many of us are going to be
> happy waiting 2 min between shots on our digital camera, just to save 1/3
> to 1/2 the memory space. Personally I think that I would rather purchase
> more memory than to have to wait several min (or even 10's of seconds)
> between normal shots. JMHO
>
> Now, if such a program were developed for archiving photos in more compact
> but lossless forms, It could have a big impact.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
Moreover, the math in the quote leaves much to be desired. A 10
megabyte image across a gigabit ethernet connection takes less than 1
second to transmit. 60 of those an hour is hardly a significant network
load.
Then there is the aspect that MRI's are NOT COLOR. I am sure that going
back to B&W is not an option for most of us.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
| |
| Philip Homburg 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| In article <NsGdnSNAL6RYJqHeRVn-oQ@rogers.com>, +/- <un@nu.com> wrote:
> If downloading digital photos stalls your PC, spare a thought for the
>data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60 requests
>every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes apiece, the
>enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
10 megabytes only takes about 1 second on 100 Mbps ethernet. Is that a big
deal?
Anyhow, a 10 megabyte jpeg is probably more than 50 Mpixels. I don't know what
kind of viewing devices they have in hospitals, but starting out with
lower resolution images and then getting high res crops from the real
image (cropping at block boundaries is cheap in jpeg) strikes me as a good
solution to reduce bandwidth.
> Enter 25-year-old Arvind Thiagarajan, co-founder of Singapore-based
>startup MatrixView, who wants to revolutionize digital imaging. The
>data-compression algorithm he invented shrinks images into a format called a
>MatrixView Universal, or MVU, which is 15 to 300 percent smaller than a
>JPEG. But unlike a JPEG, which omits details, an MVU is as precise as the
>original. "Data loss is unacceptable in medical diagnosis," Thiagarajan
>says. That's why the startup is focusing on health care first.
The usual snake-oil. Lossless compression doesn't work all that well on
images that contain noise. Any algorithm that deletes noise is also going
to delete some image detail (unless the algorithm has some much domain
specific knowledge that you can save just the 'contents' of the image
and not the pixels.)
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
| |
| Kingdom 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| "+/-" <un@nu.com> wrote in news:NsGdnSNAL6RYJqHeRVn-oQ@rogers.com:
> Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum
> leap, no compromise technology. Young genius about to rock the DI
> world.
>
> WHAT'S NEXT
> Honey, I Shrunk the JPEG
> By Shailaja Neelakantan, September 21, 2005
> BUSINESS 2.0
>
> If downloading digital photos stalls your PC, spare a thought
> for the
> data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60
> requests every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes
> apiece, the enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
>
> Enter 25-year-old Arvind Thiagarajan, co-founder of
> Singapore-based
> startup MatrixView, who wants to revolutionize digital imaging. The
> data-compression algorithm he invented shrinks images into a format
> called a MatrixView Universal, or MVU, which is 15 to 300 percent
> smaller than a JPEG. But unlike a JPEG, which omits details, an MVU is
> as precise as the original. "Data loss is unacceptable in medical
> diagnosis," Thiagarajan says. That's why the startup is focusing on
> health care first. A well-known hospital in Bangalore is using the
> technology, and MatrixView plans to ink deals in the coming year with
> several Fortune 100 health-care companies in the United States.
> MatrixView is also targeting other subsets of the $9 billion U.S.
> digital-imaging market. Right now it's negotiating with chipmakers to
> embed the technology in cameras and fit more files on storage cards.
> MRIs today, vacation snaps tomorrow.
>
> http://www.business2.com/b2/web/art...1106847,00.html
>
> http://www.matrixview.com/
>
> Download white paper:
> http://matrixview.com/files/ABO%20white%20paper.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
Doubt well ever even see this format nevermind use it, if they want cash
from hospitals they real are greedy bastards and it's about 2 years too
late we now have high speed everything!
--
f=Ma well, nearly...
| |
| *-- Jinn --* 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
|
"Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message news:dhiodk$81h$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> In rec.photo.digital Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:
> : Unless it's freely available to all developers, and doesn't include some
> : cockeyed protection scheme that makes it difficult for one to
> : backup/edit/copy one's own pictures, it'll never fly for the mass market.
>
> Also nothing is said about processing time. If a sufficiently complex
> program is run, it is very possible to compress any photo much further
> than any currently used photo image.
ABO's feautre (according to the page) is speed. It involves nothing but
integer manipulations.
> For the compression of an x-ray or
> MRI is "fast" if the result shows up in a few min while the dr and patient
> are walking back to the dr's office. But how many of us are going to be
> happy waiting 2 min between shots on our digital camera, just to save 1/3
> to 1/2 the memory space. Personally I think that I would rather purchase
> more memory than to have to wait several min (or even 10's of seconds)
> between normal shots. JMHO
>
> Now, if such a program were developed for archiving photos in more compact
> but lossless forms, It could have a big impact.
Well, FWIW, that's what ABO seems to offer.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
| |
| *-- Jinn --* 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
|
"Nicholas Sherlock" <n_sherlock@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dhis73$db8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> +/- wrote:
>
> My bullshit senses are tingling.
Why?
Perhaps the forecast of doom is premature, but better algorithms for compression
aren't technically impossible.
Not like MP3 hasn't been bested from numerous angles.
Perhaps you simply like to express negativity to new ideas /just because/?
| |
| Bruce Coryell 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| Matt Ion wrote:
> Unless it's freely available to all developers, and doesn't include some
> cockeyed protection scheme that makes it difficult for one to
> backup/edit/copy one's own pictures, it'll never fly for the mass market.
>
> +/- wrote:
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0539-2, 09/29/2005
> Tested on: 9/29/2005 11:16:05 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
Remember how Foveon was supposed to revolutionize digital photography
and what a zero it turned out to be... All of us poor sods using
conventional CCD's were supposed to have hopelessly obsolete equipment
by now.
| |
| Chris Brown 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| In article <ZI8%e.161$PA1.27851@monger.newsread.com>,
Bruce Coryell <bcoryell@chesco.com> wrote:
>
>Remember how Foveon was supposed to revolutionize digital photography
>and what a zero it turned out to be... All of us poor sods using
>conventional CCD's were supposed to have hopelessly obsolete equipment
>by now.
Sssh! You'll wake *him* up...
| |
| Charlie Self 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
|
Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
> +/- wrote:
>
> My bullshit senses are tingling.
>
Yup. Let's stick it in the catapult and see if it flies when it reaches
the end of the shot.
| |
|
| In article <u7c46qfmgu80m0ee4qboc74es3@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:
> In article <NsGdnSNAL6RYJqHeRVn-oQ@rogers.com>, +/- <un@nu.com> wrote:
>
> 10 megabytes only takes about 1 second on 100 Mbps ethernet. Is that a big
> deal?
Depends. Exactly how fast is your broadband? I'm on a LAN rated at
10mbps but do I ever get that? Well, if everyone else on the LAN logged
off, then maybe yes. As it is, I'm lucky to get 100kbps for either music
downloads or binaries.
So data compression without loss (I'm assuming these are B&W/false color
- ie 32 or 256 colors) IS very useful. How it deals with full color
JPEGs is another matter.
>
> Anyhow, a 10 megabyte jpeg is probably more than 50 Mpixels. I don't know what
> kind of viewing devices they have in hospitals, but starting out with
> lower resolution images and then getting high res crops from the real
> image (cropping at block boundaries is cheap in jpeg) strikes me as a good
> solution to reduce bandwidth.
>
>
> The usual snake-oil. Lossless compression doesn't work all that well on
> images that contain noise. Any algorithm that deletes noise is also going
> to delete some image detail (unless the algorithm has some much domain
> specific knowledge that you can save just the 'contents' of the image
> and not the pixels.)
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| In rec.photo.digital Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>
> Now, if such a program were developed for archiving photos in more compact
> but lossless forms, It could have a big impact.
>
Adobe DNG does a pretty good job with RAW file storage. It shrinks my
NEF files from my D70 by about 25% [rough estimate].
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
| |
|
| *-- Jinn --* wrote:
> Perhaps the forecast of doom is premature, but better algorithms for compression
> aren't technically impossible.
Yes, they are. Huffman coding
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding) provably gives the most
efficient result for lossless compression. This is the algorithm that is
used for TIFF.
If you managed to find a general method for loslessly compressing
bitmapped images to 30% the size of a JPEG, you'd get more attention
than a 150-word press release on some no-name website.
-Mike
| |
|
|
Bruce Coryell wrote:
> Matt Ion wrote:
>
> Remember how Foveon was supposed to revolutionize digital photography
> and what a zero it turned out to be... All of us poor sods using
> conventional CCD's were supposed to have hopelessly obsolete equipment
> by now.
did it?
| |
| Mark Roberts 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
>Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
>
>Yup. Let's stick it in the catapult and see if it flies when it reaches
>the end of the shot.
The "15 to 300 percent smaller than a JPEG" certainly sets off alarm
bells. 15 to 300 percent smaller than what JPEG quality level? And with
what *kind* of image (in terms of content): This has an influence an how
effective JPEG compression is.
Perhaps, a "naive, uninformed reporter" detector or "overhyping press
release" detector might be a better term than "bullshit senses", but
suspicion is certainly merited.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
| |
| Lorem Ipsum 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| > If you managed to find a general method for loslessly compressing
> bitmapped images to 30% the size of a JPEG, you'd get more attention than
> a 150-word press release on some no-name website.
And further, methods can be patented (if they meet the prerequisites of not
being public earlier, etc. etc.) so look to the patent office. Regardless,
patents do not require that the method be proven to be better, just unique.
I can check that out from work later.
The so-called white paper is topical, not adequate to tell what the author
is really doing. References to symbolic representations look like nothing
but adaptive compression schemes in the same file. Nothing new there in the
research community.
I look forward to authoritative reviews in the journals.
Now it's time to go to the day job on T2, 100mb desktop machines, fiber
optic backbones and one fast courier who can carry a few terabytes of images
in his arms up the elevator faster than God.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| In rec.photo.digital none <noone@test.com> wrote:
>
> If you managed to find a general method for loslessly compressing
> bitmapped images to 30% the size of a JPEG, you'd get more attention
> than a 150-word press release on some no-name website.
>
Absolutely correct!
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
| |
| Lorem Ipsum 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| Will you people who reply with lame one-liners please SNIP THE ARTICLE?
(mark)?
| |
| Philip Homburg 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| In article <anyone4tennis-D5E55A.20593230092005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp>,
Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <u7c46qfmgu80m0ee4qboc74es3@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
> philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>
>
>Depends. Exactly how fast is your broadband?
At work, I can get 100 Mbps when I need it. The backbone tends to be
fast enough.
>As it is, I'm lucky to get 100kbps for either music
>downloads or binaries.
That means that you have a completely obsolete backbone.
(At home, I have about 3Mbps down (and the ISP's network has enough capacity),
so a single 10 MByte image takes about 30 seconds.)
>So data compression without loss (I'm assuming these are B&W/false color
>- ie 32 or 256 colors) IS very useful. How it deals with full color
>JPEGs is another matter.
There is not going to be any lossless compression that works better than jpeg
(without using domain specific knowledge). If you have images that are suitable
for lossless compression, compress them with png. For grayscale images,
compressing a TIFF with bzip2 may also work.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
| |
| Stephen Poley 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:10:03 -0500, "Lorem Ipsum" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>And further, methods can be patented (if they meet the prerequisites of not
>being public earlier, etc. etc.) so look to the patent office. Regardless,
>patents do not require that the method be proven to be better, just unique.
>I can check that out from work later.
>
>The so-called white paper is topical, not adequate to tell what the author
>is really doing. References to symbolic representations look like nothing
>but adaptive compression schemes in the same file.
That's being kind. It looks like snake-oil to me. For example the
references to the OSI model say to me that the author neither
understands the OSI model nor wants to.
There was a similar case of somebody making ludicrous compression claims
in the Netherlands a year or so back. I don't think anyone managed to
discover whether the author was a con-man or merely deluded, but he
certainly didn't have anything workable. (He is now dead, so I guess
we'll never know.) It seems to be this decade's perpetual motion
machine.
--
Stephen Poley
| |
| Matt Ion 2005-09-30, 6:15 pm |
| Trevor wrote:
> <big snip>
>
>
>
> data formats are like standards - there are so many to choose from. I woudl
> rather put my trust in JPEG2000, but that's taking its time getting to the
> masses - anyone up to date on the Lizardtech claims?
That's a perfect example: even the wonderful fre InfanView has only very
very limited support for JPEG2000 because the plugin must be paid for.
99.9% of users are going to have no need for the format's extra
features/capabilities that are going to be worth actually paying for the
support, especially when regular JPG is more than sufficient.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0539-2, 09/29/2005
Tested on: 9/30/2005 7:45:44 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
| |
|
|
*-- Jinn --* wrote:
> "Nicholas Sherlock" <n_sherlock@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dhis73$db8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Why?
Press releases that begin in that vein tend to end in this one:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business...2787085195.html
>
> Perhaps the forecast of doom is premature, but better algorithms for compression
> aren't technically impossible.
>
> Not like MP3 hasn't been bested from numerous angles.
>
> Perhaps you simply like to express negativity to new ideas /just because/?
| |
|
|
| Gerrit 't Hart 2005-09-30, 6:16 pm |
|
"Mark Roberts" <mark@robertstech.com> wrote in message
news:dhjcer111e@news3.newsguy.com...
> The "15 to 300 percent smaller than a JPEG" certainly sets off alarm
> bells.
BTW how can anything be more than 100% smaller?
100% smaller = 0
Gerrit
| |
| Barry Pearson 2005-09-30, 6:16 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>
> Adobe DNG does a pretty good job with RAW file storage. It shrinks my
> NEF files from my D70 by about 25% [rough estimate].
DNG uses lossless JPEG compression. That indicates that it can't be
nearly as much as a lossy JPEG compression. So it is unlikely to be
able to compete with this new form, assuming the statement about it is
accurate. But I am sceptical about whether this is really a lossless
compression.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
| |
| Richard Kettlewell 2005-09-30, 6:16 pm |
| none <noone@test.com> writes:
> *-- Jinn --* wrote:
>
> Yes, they are. Huffman coding
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding) provably gives the
> most efficient result for lossless compression. This is the
> algorithm that is used for TIFF.
Err, sort of; it gives the most efficient result if you are
constrained to map each input symbol to the same output bit pattern.
That's hardly a universal constraint.
> If you managed to find a general method for loslessly compressing
> bitmapped images to 30% the size of a JPEG, you'd get more attention
> than a 150-word press release on some no-name website.
This, however, is true.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
| |
| Roger Whitehead 2005-09-30, 6:16 pm |
| Which means you get a negative image. Quite common in photography. 8-)
--
Roger
| |
| Dave Martindale 2005-09-30, 6:16 pm |
| Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> writes:
[color=darkred]
>Depends. Exactly how fast is your broadband? I'm on a LAN rated at
>10mbps but do I ever get that? Well, if everyone else on the LAN logged
>off, then maybe yes. As it is, I'm lucky to get 100kbps for either music
>downloads or binaries.
The port coming out of your cable modem is 10 Mbps, but the cable's
maximum useful bandwidth (and the modem's maximum capability) is a
fraction of that. And you do have to share it with your neighbours
because there's only one wire.
Any hospital installing bargain-basement equipment today would get at
least 100 Mbps hardware and switches not hubs. That can actually
sustain at least 50 Mbps of data transfer, and many transfers can be in
progress at the same time because of the switches as long as they use
different paths. 10 MB images are not a problem.
Dave
| |
| Peter Twydell 2005-09-30, 6:16 pm |
| In message
<433d58d5$0$6560$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Gerrit 't
Hart <gthart@sad.au> writes
>
>"Mark Roberts" <mark@robertstech.com> wrote in message
>news:dhjcer111e@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>BTW how can anything be more than 100% smaller?
>100% smaller = 0
>
>Gerrit
>
>
You beat me to it. This is sheer nonsense, along the same lines as
journalists writing "three times smaller" when they mean (I think)
"one-third as big", or "300% bigger" when there's only a 200% increase.
And another thing... (rant, mutter, mumble)
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
| |
|
| <<The data-compression algorithm he invented shrinks images into a format
called a MatrixView Universal, or MVU, which is 15 to 300 percent smaller
than a JPEG.[color=darkred]
Er, how can you make something 300% smaller? 100% is all of it ....
--
Paul ============}
o o
// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
| |
|
|
| eawckyegcy@yahoo.com 2005-09-30, 6:16 pm |
| *-- Jinn --* wrote:
>
> Why?
Because there a large number of "data compression" claims that have
later been shown to be bullshit (or, usually, failure on the part of
the claimant to back up his claim). They are the perpetual motion
machines of computation.
> Perhaps you simply like to express negativity to new ideas /just because/?
More likely is that you are just ignorant of the history of these
things.
| |
| Gormless 2005-09-30, 10:14 pm |
|
"+/-" <un@nu.com> wrote in message news:NsGdnSNAL6RYJqHeRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60 requests
> every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes apiece, the
> enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
>
If 10 megabytes a minute can cripple a hospital network then I don't think
much of their networks.
And since when was a 10 Mb image 'enormous'?
| |
|
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:14:55 -0400, "+/-" <un@nu.com> wrote:
>Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap, no
>compromise technology. Young genius about to rock the DI world.
>
>WHAT'S NEXT
>Honey, I Shrunk the JPEG
>By Shailaja Neelakantan, September 21, 2005
>BUSINESS 2.0
>
> If downloading digital photos stalls your PC, spare a thought for the
>data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60 requests
>every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes apiece, the
>enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
>
> Enter 25-year-old Arvind Thiagarajan, co-founder of Singapore-based
>startup MatrixView, who wants to revolutionize digital imaging. The
>data-compression algorithm he invented shrinks images into a format called a
>MatrixView Universal, or MVU, which is 15 to 300 percent smaller than a
>JPEG. But unlike a JPEG, which omits details, an MVU is as precise as the
>original.
B.S.
| |
| Paul J Gans 2005-10-01, 3:14 am |
| In rec.photo.digital Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:
>: Unless it's freely available to all developers, and doesn't include some
>: cockeyed protection scheme that makes it difficult for one to
>: backup/edit/copy one's own pictures, it'll never fly for the mass market.
>Also nothing is said about processing time. If a sufficiently complex
>program is run, it is very possible to compress any photo much further
>than any currently used photo image. For the compression of an x-ray or
>MRI is "fast" if the result shows up in a few min while the dr and patient
>are walking back to the dr's office. But how many of us are going to be
>happy waiting 2 min between shots on our digital camera, just to save 1/3
>to 1/2 the memory space. Personally I think that I would rather purchase
>more memory than to have to wait several min (or even 10's of seconds)
>between normal shots. JMHO
>Now, if such a program were developed for archiving photos in more compact
>but lossless forms, It could have a big impact.
I agree. But that is a serious major use. With an
ever larger pixel count it is getting to the point
where I will be up to my navel in DVDs with images
on them.
----- Paul J. Gans
| |
| Robert L. Haar 2005-10-01, 3:14 am |
| On 2005/9/30 6:17 AM, "*-- Jinn --*" <birp2211@offline.nuts> wrote:
>
> "Nicholas Sherlock" <n_sherlock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dhis73$db8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Why?
For one thing, the original post cannot be mathematically correct. A 300
percent reduction in size would make the file size negative.
| |
|
|
Paul J Gans wrote:
> ...
>
>
> I agree. But that is a serious major use. With an
> ever larger pixel count it is getting to the point
> where I will be up to my navel in DVDs with images
> on them.
That's odd - because my folders of 35mm/120 negatives, which carry
considerably more information than any JPEG I've seen - take up
relatively little space.
So much for the revolution.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
| |
| Nicholas Sherlock 2005-10-01, 3:14 am |
| Paul J Gans wrote:
> I agree. But that is a serious major use. With an
> ever larger pixel count it is getting to the point
> where I will be up to my navel in DVDs with images
> on them.
But storage densities are increasing too. When blu-ray DVDs come out
(And more technology after that) it will be less of a problem.
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
| |
| Charlie Self 2005-10-01, 6:17 am |
|
Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> But storage densities are increasing too. When blu-ray DVDs come out
> (And more technology after that) it will be less of a problem.
>
25 to 50 gigs. Not bad. My only fear is that by the time Blu Ray is
affordable, we'll be staring at 100 MP cameras. There goes the advance
in storage.
| |
| Nicholas Sherlock 2005-10-01, 6:18 am |
| Charlie Self wrote:
> Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
>
>
>
> 25 to 50 gigs. Not bad. My only fear is that by the time Blu Ray is
> affordable, we'll be staring at 100 MP cameras. There goes the advance
> in storage.
But if they increase together at the same rate, it'll never be any worse
than it is right now :).
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
| |
| Andrew Haley 2005-10-01, 6:15 pm |
| In rec.photo.digital toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> Paul J Gans wrote:
[color=darkred]
> That's odd - because my folders of 35mm/120 negatives, which carry
> considerably more information than any JPEG I've seen - take up
> relatively little space.
Relative to what? Colour film is about 100kbytes/mm^3, whereas
current hard disc drives are at about 1.5 Mbytes/mm^3.
Andrew.
| |
| Lorem Ipsum 2005-10-01, 6:15 pm |
| "Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:11jsonp3qd5v1cd@news.supernews.com...
> In rec.photo.digital toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
> Relative to what? Colour film is about 100kbytes/mm^3, whereas
> current hard disc drives are at about 1.5 Mbytes/mm^3.
So the thread degenerates to minutiae. Unplug your drive. Now measure. See
how it works?
| |
|
| Andrew Haley wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> Relative to what? Colour film is about 100kbytes/mm^3, whereas
> current hard disc drives are at about 1.5 Mbytes/mm^3.
Yes, that's why I said it the remark was "odd" - since the density is
remarkably different. I'm not up to my navel in film negatives. But
then maybe the poster is storing the Bettmann Archive.
(Based on specs for a typical 200GB SATA drive such as
http://www.seagate.com/cda/products...081,599,00.html
I compute hard drive density at 513,349 bytes/mm^3. I suppose a 600GB
drive in the same form factor would equate to roughly your figure.)
At (uncompressed) 24-bit, I empirically measure film at a minimum of
17Kb x mm^2 (typically higher), and assuming 0.11mm base and 10%
packing waste, I compute a minimum density of 140Kb/mm^3 at 24 bit.
This does not take into account continuous-tone vs. 8-bit quantisation
(if we assume 16 bit samples, density would be more like 280Kb/mm^3,
which is interestingly enough, only half current hard drive density).
More scientific data at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html
(Based on assessment of many drum scans, I put low-end 35mm at approx
15 Mp equivalent, 6x7cm at a minimum of 73 Mp. But that's a whole
different war. Not to mention 4x5" and 8x10"...)
>
> Andrew.
| |
| Rainer Latka 2005-10-01, 6:15 pm |
| Ron Hunter schrieb am Freitag, 30. September 2005 10:18:
[...]
> Moreover, the math in the quote leaves much to be desired. A 10
> megabyte image across a gigabit ethernet connection takes less than 1
> second to transmit. 60 of those an hour is hardly a significant
> network load.
> Then there is the aspect that MRI's are NOT COLOR. I am sure that
> going back to B&W is not an option for most of us.
provided the algorithm is really lossless, one could of course compress
the RGB channels individually...
| |
| KatWoman 2005-10-01, 6:15 pm |
| "Look out the sky is falling"
Chicken Little
"+/-" <un@nu.com> wrote in message news:NsGdnSNAL6RYJqHeRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap,
> no compromise technology. Young genius about to rock the DI world.
>
> WHAT'S NEXT
> Honey, I Shrunk the JPEG
> By Shailaja Neelakantan, September 21, 2005
> BUSINESS 2.0
>
> If downloading digital photos stalls your PC, spare a thought for the
> data networks in hospitals. A midsize hospital typically gets 60 requests
> every hour for MRIs and echocardiograms. At 10 megabytes apiece, the
> enormous images can quickly cripple a network.
>
> snip
> cards. MRIs today, vacation snaps tomorrow.
>
> http://www.business2.com/b2/web/art...1106847,00.html
>
> http://www.matrixview.com/
>
> Download white paper:
> http://matrixview.com/files/ABO%20white%20paper.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Skip M 2005-10-02, 3:14 am |
| "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:1128146225.278165.148190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> That's odd - because my folders of 35mm/120 negatives, which carry
> considerably more information than any JPEG I've seen - take up
> relatively little space.
>
> So much for the revolution.
>
A 300gig external hard drive is a whole lot smaller than the cases for 300
slides.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
| |
|
| Skip M wrote:
> "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1128146225.278165.148190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> A 300gig external hard drive is a whole lot smaller than the cases for 300
> slides.
I imagine I could fit a lot more than 300 slides into the space of 70
DVDs (which Paul said had reached his navel, and they probably would,
stacked from the floor). But possibly not enough slides to fill 300GB
(say 6000 uncompressed 35mm scans :). Bottom line is, should Paul be
archiving on hard disk?
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
| |
| Skip M 2005-10-02, 3:14 am |
|
"toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:1128228908.584116.29480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=darkred]
> Skip M wrote:
>
> I imagine I could fit a lot more than 300 slides into the space of 70
> DVDs (which Paul said had reached his navel, and they probably would,
> stacked from the floor). But possibly not enough slides to fill 300GB
> (say 6000 uncompressed 35mm scans :). Bottom line is, should Paul be
> archiving on hard disk?
>
I would say emphatically, "Hell Yes!" An external HD is less likely to be
affected by the vagaries of the main computer, too.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
| |
| JohnR66 2005-10-02, 6:14 pm |
| "Robert L. Haar" <rlhaar@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BF6385DC.BE6FD%rlhaar@comcast.net...
> On 2005/9/30 6:17 AM, "*-- Jinn --*" <birp2211@offline.nuts> wrote:
>
>
>
> For one thing, the original post cannot be mathematically correct. A 300
> percent reduction in size would make the file size negative.
>
I like the idea. Put files on the drive and you get more space!
| |
| Rainer Latka 2005-10-02, 6:14 pm |
| Skip M schrieb am Sonntag, 2. Oktober 2005 06:58:
>
> "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
[...]
>
> I would say emphatically, "Hell Yes!" An external HD is less likely
> to be affected by the vagaries of the main computer, too.
how come? You'll have to connect it to read/write on it, so any
malicious SW will reach it. And when disconnected, the risk of being
dropped is certainly higher than with a built-in disk
| |
|
|
Rainer Latka wrote:
> Skip M schrieb am Sonntag, 2. Oktober 2005 06:58:
> [...]
>
> how come? You'll have to connect it to read/write on it, so any
> malicious SW will reach it.
It can be made read-only easily enough.
> And when disconnected, the risk of being
> dropped is certainly higher than with a built-in disk
I could drop a folder of negatives in the bath, too. DVD-Rs are very
fragile media, I'd sooner use a hermetic metal case.
| |
| Lorem Ipsum 2005-10-02, 6:14 pm |
| While getting into the car yesterday, I dropped 4 gig of data onto the
concrete drive. It was wrapped only in an acetate envelope. Zero damage.
(8x10" negative).
| |
|
| "Robert L. Haar" < wrote in ...
> On 2005/9/30 6:17 AM, "*-- Jinn --*" > wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> For one thing, the original post cannot be mathematically correct. A 300
> percent reduction in size would make the file size negative.
Also, anyone who (or whose press release) describes themselves as a "genius"
raises the bs flag too. Especially an unknown genius.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2005-10-02, 10:14 pm |
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:17:31 GMT, "*-- Jinn --*"
<birp2211@offline.nuts> wrote:
>
>"Nicholas Sherlock" <n_sherlock@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dhis73$db8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>Why?
>
>Perhaps the forecast of doom is premature, but better algorithms for compression
>aren't technically impossible.
>
>Not like MP3 hasn't been bested from numerous angles.
>
>Perhaps you simply like to express negativity to new ideas /just because/?
>
Perhaps you like to psychoanalyze people on the basis of a
single usenet posting?
Is your license to practice current?
| |
| Alturas 2005-10-03, 3:14 am |
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:27:59 +0200, "Trevor" <trev@a.c.z> wrote:
><big snip>
>
>
>data formats are like standards - there are so many to choose from. I woudl
>rather put my trust in JPEG2000, but that's taking its time getting to the
>masses - anyone up to date on the Lizardtech claims?
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
----== Posted via codecomments.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.codecomments.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Mike Jacoubowsky 2005-10-03, 3:14 am |
| > Moreover, the math in the quote leaves much to be desired. A 10 megabyte
> image across a gigabit ethernet connection takes less than 1 second to
> transmit. 60 of those an hour is hardly a significant network load.
> Then there is the aspect that MRI's are NOT COLOR. I am sure that going
> back to B&W is not an option for most of us.
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
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6x6%e.1891$np2.528@fe02.lga...
> Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Moreover, the math in the quote leaves much to be desired. A 10 megabyte
> image across a gigabit ethernet connection takes less than 1 second to
> transmit. 60 of those an hour is hardly a significant network load.
> Then there is the aspect that MRI's are NOT COLOR. I am sure that going
> back to B&W is not an option for most of us.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
| |
| Keith Sheppard 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| >>Finally, JPEG is doomed, algorithm geeks unite! This is the quantum leap,[color=darkred]
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.
Regards
Keith
| |
|
|
|
|
| Chris Brown 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| In article <BT60f.2982$rp1.1826@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Keith Sheppard <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote:
>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.
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.
| |
| All Things Mopar 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| Today Keith Sheppard spoke these views with conviction for
everyone's edification:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
| |
|
| "Alturas" <username@isp.com> wrote ...
> "Trevor" <trev@a.c.z> wrote:
>
> 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.
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 ;-)?
| |
| All Things Mopar 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| Today ggull spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:
> "Alturas" <username@isp.com> wrote ...
>
> 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 ;-)?
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
invention?
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.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| Bill Funk 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:31:13 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
<keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote:
>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.
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
difference.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
| |
| Chris Brown 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| In article <Xns96E45E8A6AC52ReplyID@216.196.97.136>,
All Things Mopar <none@none.non> wrote:
>Today ggull spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
>edification:
>
>
>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.
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.
| |
|
|
All Things Mopar wrote:
> Today ggull spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
> edification:
>
"Intellectual property" law is not universally considered a meaningful
term. It's part of the Newspeak arsenal of patent lobbyists.
[color=darkred]
>
> Yes, it actually /does/ encourage innovation by "encouraging"
> new inventors to create an even more superior version of a
> commodity.
And if *they* claim a patent on *that*, we're back to square zero.
> 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
> invention?
>
> 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.
None of those points are germane to the *software* patent debate. See:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fight...re-patents.html
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| All Things Mopar 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| Today Chris Brown spoke these views with conviction for
everyone's edification:
>
> 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.
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?
--
ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| All Things Mopar 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| Today toby spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:
> "Intellectual property" law is not universally considered a
> meaningful term. It's part of the Newspeak arsenal of
> patent lobbyists.
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 Jeep® 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...
>
> And if *they* claim a patent on *that*, we're back to
> square zero.
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.
> None of those points are germane to the *software* patent
> debate. See:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fight...re-patents.html
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.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| Chris Brown 2005-10-03, 6:15 pm |
| In article <1128353479.154961.138370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Intellectual property" law is not universally considered a meaningful
>term. It's part of the Newspeak arsenal of patent lobbyists.
Hardly - it's gerenally accepted as being a short term for patent, copyright
and trademark law.
| |
|
|
All Things Mopar wrote:
> Today toby spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
> edification:
>
>
> It is an entirely both appropriate and universally accepted
> term, and attorneys and entire law offices specialize in it. ...
>
> 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. ...
Does any of that make it less bureaucratic Newspeak?
>
> 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.
I guess you haven't heard of Richard Stallman.
--T
> 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.
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| Roger Whitehead 2005-10-03, 6:16 pm |
| In article <n83813-f7r.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown wrote:
>
> Hardly - it's gerenally accepted as being a short term for patent, copyright
> and trademark law.
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. 8-)
--
Roger
| |
|
|
Roger Whitehead wrote:
> In article <n83813-f7r.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown wrote:
However, it is also used to deliberately blur the distinctions between
those arenas.
[color=darkred]
>
> 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.
I did not know the coinage was as old as that. Thanks.
>
> 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. 8-)
I did say 'not universally'. Here's a Northern hemisphere opinion:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?...040805065337222
>
> --
>
> Roger
| |
| All Things Mopar 2005-10-03, 6:16 pm |
| Today toby spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:
> I guess you haven't heard of Richard Stallman.
Nope. Who he?
--
ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| Richard Kettlewell 2005-10-03, 6:16 pm |
| All Things Mopar <none@none.non> writes:
> 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.
One might observe that patent offices have a clear economic interest
in granting patents, but less so in actually understanding them.
> 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?
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:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
> 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?
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.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
| |
| All Things Mopar 2005-10-03, 10:14 pm |
| Today Richard Kettlewell spoke these views with conviction
for everyone's edification:
> One might observe that patent offices have a clear economic
> interest in granting patents, but less so in actually
> understanding them.
Come again? They can't be generating all that much revenue
from patents, although I'd certainly agree that nobody tries
to understand how the inventions work. The wonks are way too
busy scrutinizing the millions of existing patents to see if
the new kid on the block has something all new, a derivative
work, or simply the same as a previous patent just tweaked a
little.
And, to the real point of this thread, even if a patent is
granted for the new lossless-but-smaller compression scheme,
there's no legal requirement whatsoever for it even to work!
> Software patents are for the algorithm and not the code.
> Code is protected by copyright instead.
That's what I thought.
> LZW is the best known example, being the algorithm behind
> the GIF file format. More details:
Who owns that and how much are they getting paid in royalties?
And, how long has it been since the original patent was
granted? Then, too, there's several derivatives of the
original 256 color GIF.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
This is the same web site I already think is bogus. And,
wasn't it CompuServe that invented GIF, and not Unisys (which
didn't exist) or IBM? Being a cynic, I can't imagine IBM
having enough sense to patent anything, after how easily they
got hoodwinked by a very young, but very astute, Bill Gates.
Gates had buried a single line in the middle of a 150-page
agreement that gave him the rights to market his own version
of PC DOS. And, the rest is history.
> The JPEG specification is copyrighted, but copyright on a
> specification does not in general preclude implementing it.
I'd believe this. I would also believe that the photographers
/wanted/ software developers to use the new standard. Maybe
some people patented their algorithm for implementing the JPEG
spec and maybe they didn't. If they did, who's paying the
royalties to whom, and for how much longer will this go on?
> The algorithms required to implement baseline JPEG are
> (believed to be) patent-unencumbered, and this is
> deliberate.
Then, how the hell is some new compression algorithm in anyway
an infringement of JPEG?
--
ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| tacit 2005-10-03, 10:14 pm |
| In article <Xns96E4BAB19A594ReplyID@216.196.97.136>,
All Things Mopar <none@none.non> wrote:
>
> This is the same web site I already think is bogus. And,
> wasn't it CompuServe that invented GIF, and not Unisys (which
> didn't exist) or IBM?
That's an easy one.
LZW is not a graphics format. LZW is a compression algorithm.
CompuServe invented GIF. Part of the GIF standard involves LZW
compression. Each row of pixels in a GIF image is compressed using LZW.
CompuServe owns the GIF standard, which they created; but they had to
lizense LZW compression, which was patented. (I say "was" because the
patent has since expired.) It's not the GIF specification that was
patented; it's the compression technique that GIF images use.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
| All Things Mopar wrote:
> ...
>
> Who owns that and how much are they getting paid in royalties?
> And, how long has it been since the original patent was
> granted? Then, too, there's several derivatives of the
> original 256 color GIF.
Yes, people did make some creative attempts to avoid being sued. None
were particularly successful except PNG
[http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/]. You might argue that this is a case
where a patent sparked something new 'of necessity', but I still feel
that 'fear of litigation' sounds more like a deadly discouragement than
a social boon.
>
>
> This is the same web site I already think is bogus.
Have you heard of the GPL? It comes from the same bogus source
[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html]. And has changed the whole
bogus software industry for the bogus better.
> And,
> wasn't it CompuServe that invented GIF,
It's not about GIF. It's about LZW, which Unisys happened to be able to
produce a patent for (although there was much related independent
invention).
> and not Unisys (which
> didn't exist) or IBM? Being a cynic, I can't imagine IBM
> having enough sense to patent anything, ...
That's a strange statement since they may have the largest patent
portfolio of any tech company.
>
>
>
> I'd believe this.
I want to believe it too. Copyright is not a bad idea. A patent that
precludes implementation is fatal.
> I would also believe that the photographers
> /wanted/ software developers to use the new standard. Maybe
> some people patented their algorithm for implementing the JPEG
> spec and maybe they didn't. If they did, who's paying the
> royalties to whom, and for how much longer will this go on?
Now you're getting warm.
>
>
> Then, how the hell is some new compression algorithm in anyway
> an infringement of JPEG?
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry
| |
| Keith Sheppard 2005-10-04, 6:15 am |
| > For one thing, the original post cannot be mathematically correct. A 300
> percent reduction in size would make the file size negative.
Oh dear, that's got my imagination running riot. If we accept that as true,
what does it mean? A compression algorithm so efficient that it has spare
capacity to automatically absorb some of the surrounding filestore and
reduce overall occupancy. Anyone got a few snaps in this format that I can
borrow? I don't want to look at them but my disk is getting a bit full and
I could do with the extra space...
Keith
| |
| Chris Brown 2005-10-04, 6:15 am |
| In article <Xns96E4BAB19A594ReplyID@216.196.97.136>,
All Things Mopar <none@none.non> wrote:
>
>This is the same web site I already think is bogus.
They produced the compilers, editors and software tools which half the
software industry uses for its bread and butter work. What have *you* done
that's comparable? Bogus indeed...
| |
| Roger Whitehead 2005-10-04, 6:15 am |
| In article <1128367061.020320.16390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Toby
wrote:
> I did say 'not universally'.
It's a matter of record that you did - http://tinyurl.com/9x44t .
--
Roger
| |
| Howard Roark 2005-10-04, 6:15 am |
| Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
[...]
[...]
[color=darkred]
> They produced the compilers, editors and software tools which half
> the software industry uses for its bread and butter work. [...]
I believe you are confusing GNU with *nix. If you're not, then "half
the software industry" is a ridiculous exaggeration. Note that I do not
agree with the person you were responding to. I'm just pointing out
that you seem to overestimate GNU's importance. :)
B.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2005-10-04, 6:16 pm |
| On 3 Oct 2005 16:04:48 -0700, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>All Things Mopar wrote:
>
>That's a strange statement since they may have the largest patent
>portfolio of any tech company.
Definitely. In fact, at
<http://www.research.ibm.com/about/career.shtml> you will find:
Careers at Research
We don't just invent, we innovate.
Researchers come to IBM to make an impact -- on the industry and on
the world. As the largest IT research organization, IBM Research
enables IBM to produce more breakthroughs than any company in the
industry, averaging 9.3 patents per day.
| |
| Richard Kettlewell 2005-10-04, 6:16 pm |
| All Things Mopar <none@none.non> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell writes:
>
> Who owns that and how much are they getting paid in royalties? And,
> how long has it been since the original patent was granted? Then,
> too, there's several derivatives of the original 256 color GIF.
The LZW patent has now expired. However, Unisys did ask for royalties
from users of GIF while it was in force.
In my previous job I converted my employer's software to generate PNG
files instead, so that we didn't have to pay up. Make of this what
you will.
>
> This is the same web site I already think is bogus. And, wasn't it
> CompuServe that invented GIF, and not Unisys (which didn't exist) or
> IBM?
The URL above explains. It is not "bogus" whatever you may think.
> Being a cynic, I can't imagine IBM having enough sense to patent
> anything, after how easily they got hoodwinked by a very young, but
> very astute, Bill Gates. Gates had buried a single line in the
> middle of a 150-page agreement that gave him the rights to market
> his own version of PC DOS. And, the rest is history.
IBM hold very large numbers of patents.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
| |
| Chris Brown 2005-10-04, 6:16 pm |
| In article <Xns96E576E289CB2thisismyidtoken@62.89.127.66>,
Howard Roark <HowardRoark@Fountainhead.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>I believe you are confusing GNU with *nix. If you're not, then "half
>the software industry" is a ridiculous exaggeration.
I'm not, and it's not. In particular, IME the first thing someone does when
they get a Solaris box is install gcc, emacs, and the rest of the gnu tools
on it (using a base-config Solaris installation is truly a hair-shirt
experience). Elsewhere, Linux is pretty much the defacto standard for small
to medium Internet server type stuff, and that's pretty much entirely built
on the gnu tools, as is OS X. When real software developers are forced to
use Windows, they tend to go hunting for the Gnu tools as well, just to make
life slightly less unbearable.
| |
| Howard Roark 2005-10-04, 6:16 pm |
| Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns96E576E289CB2thisismyidtoken@62.89.127.66>,
> Howard Roark <HowardRoark@Fountainhead.com> wrote:
[snipped Solaris]
[color=darkred]
> Elsewhere, Linux is pretty much the defacto standard for small to
> medium Internet server type stuff, and that's pretty much entirely
> built on the gnu tools,
Linux is *not* the defacto standard for any type of server. The
various BSDs are just as popular and, thankfully, they aren't based
on GNU.
> as is OS X.
OS/X is based on FreeBSD which does *not* use GNU tools.
> When real software developers are forced to use Windows, they tend
> to go hunting for the Gnu tools as well, just to make life slightly
> less unbearable.
You are generalising. Again, "half the software industry" is a gross
overstatement.
B.
| |
| All Things Mopar 2005-10-04, 6:16 pm |
| Today tacit spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:
> LZW is not a graphics format. LZW is a compression
> algorithm.
>
> CompuServe invented GIF. Part of the GIF standa | | |