<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>EveryJoe &#187; JPEG</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.everyjoe.com/tag/jpeg/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.everyjoe.com</link>
	<description>Sports News - Tech Reviews - Entertainment - Life Tips for EveryJoe</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:45:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Windows Media Photo</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/windows-media-photo-59/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/windows-media-photo-59/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2006 04:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jason Bean</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JPEG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RAW]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.microsoftweblog.com/2006/06/07/windows-media-photo/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What do you think? Is this really needed? Here are some opinions, then I&#8217;ll share my own:
&#8220;While the half the size of a JPG is interesting, it&#8217;s largely irrelevant in my opinion,&#8221; blogged Thomas Hawk, a San Francisco-based digital media enthusiast and author of the &#8220;Digital Media&#8221; blog. &#8220;Flash memory and hard drive storage cost being what it is these days storing JPG images is not inconvenient. But better quality is something and this could be meaningful.&#8221;
Microsoft has unveiled its new image compression format, called Windows Media Photo, which will be natively supported in Windows Vista and upgrades to XP. [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/windows-media-photo-59/">Windows Media Photo</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you think? Is this really needed? Here are some opinions, then I&#8217;ll share my own:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;While the half the size of a JPG is interesting, it&#8217;s largely irrelevant in my opinion,&#8221; blogged Thomas Hawk, a San Francisco-based digital media enthusiast and author of the &#8220;Digital Media&#8221; blog. &#8220;Flash memory and hard drive storage cost being what it is these days storing JPG images is not inconvenient. But better quality is something and this could be meaningful.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Microsoft has unveiled its new image compression format, called Windows Media Photo, which will be natively supported in Windows Vista and upgrades to XP. WM Photo features 24:1 compression while retaining far more detail than JPEG or JPEG 2000 formats. Microsoft is shooting to have higher quality than typical digital cameras while at a 12:1 level (most cameras use 6:1, so that’s a very good thing).</p>
<p>The format also has advanced features, including processing to only show part of the image to shrink it, and rotating without re-encoding the image.</p></blockquote>
<p>Although I partly agree with Thomas Hawk and think overcoming JPEG&#8217;s wide acceptance and use is going to be an uphill battle, I don&#8217;t think ignoring the fact of smaller file sizes is helpful. Sure storage is getting cheaper and bandwidth is getting wider, but should we continue to glutton ourselves on what&#8217;s available instead of trying to become leaner and sharper? I think not. There needs to be a combo of both.</p>
<p>I like what Nathan Weinberg has to say as well, but a crucial factor will be whether or not the new format will be supported in browsers. That&#8217;s my biggest concern, what I don&#8217;t want to have to deal with is having a separate file format for online photos and those stored on my local drives, because if you&#8217;re a web designer like myself, then you&#8217;ve got two photos of the same thing, and that&#8217;s just annoying!</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1967918,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535">Microsoft Pushes Its Own Alternative to JPEG</a><br />
Source: <a href="http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/25/microsoft-taking-on-jpeg-about-damn-time/">Microsoft Taking on JPEG; About Damn Time!</a></p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com">EveryJoe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/windows-media-photo-59/">Windows Media Photo</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/windows-media-photo-59/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>