yay! The jpeg patent has been revoked. Bastards.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 6105754880
| ClanKiller.com https://forums.plasmasky.com/ |
|
| jpeg patent revoked https://forums.plasmasky.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1842 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Satis [ Fri May 26, 2006 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | jpeg patent revoked |
yay! The jpeg patent has been revoked. Bastards.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 6105754880 |
|
| Author: | derf [ Sat May 27, 2006 1:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pretty bad english in that article. |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Sat May 27, 2006 8:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
it's law-speak, what can you expect? |
|
| Author: | Peltz [ Mon May 29, 2006 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This certainly qualifies as the most useless information of the day 
|
|
| Author: | Satis [ Mon May 29, 2006 11:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
bah, no respect. Personally, I wouldn't like having to turn every jpg I used on this site into png to keep from having to pay licensing fees. |
|
| Author: | RB [ Mon May 29, 2006 12:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If such a thing happen, we'll have soon some almost equal and free format. Such reaction would be inevitable. |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Mon May 29, 2006 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yea, png already exists. Something like that would only drive everyone to png, which would be nice. png == compression like jpeg, transparency like gif, and I think animation like gif. png == teh pwnerizer. And it's already supported in IE and Firefox.
|
|
| Author: | RB [ Tue May 30, 2006 1:42 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | ||||||||||
Excuse me? It is hard to see differences in look of these two images. Size would not be the one to discuss here. Not to mention what happens with more lossy compression. |
||||||||||
| Author: | derf [ Tue May 30, 2006 3:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
png is better, but you can really tell easily from those two photos. |
|
| Author: | RB [ Tue May 30, 2006 3:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
PNG is not an lossy format which demands quality, but that would be not always the best choice. Just calculate loss of image information on the JPEG image over and compare it with the difference in size. Let see if someone would tell such approximations aren't welcome in many cases. Still, there are things JPEG can and PNG cannot and oppose, which make them two impossible to *replace* each other. Some features would be missing. Or I'm wrong? I agree with Satis in one: forbid me to use JPEG and I'll use PNG instead (till some free and standard JPEG-nearequal comes). |
|
| Author: | RB [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+shows+off ... g=nefd.top |
|
| Author: | Arathorn [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Same quality at half the size, where did I hear that one before? Oh yes, that was wma. I'ld rather use open formats, and I'm sceptical about MS claims by definition. |
|
| Author: | RB [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Me too, but here we speak of possible replacements... I did not see this one so I cannot say nothing more. If I have to pay lincence in order to use JPEG and not for something else, and it is easy to install that other format, what to discuss about? |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd still stick with PNG. At least PNG support exists in all modern browsers. And new format (like jpeg2000, for instance) still doesn't have native support. Of course, even if the jpeg patent were held up, I doubt that they would try to get cash from all the website owners. After all, gif is owned by CompuServ, but that's virtually in the public domain now. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
