(16/03/2012 08:08 AM)Assassinator Wrote:  I wonder if MS's new JPEG_XR is any good.

Probably comparable to x264.  http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154749
I think the only good encoder for it is the Expression Encoder.

H.264 is a bit interesting in that many devices nowadays have H.264 High profile hardware decoders, so they may theoretically support H.264 still images, and without using much CPU.  Dunno whether they can handle typical camera resolutions though.
JPEG XR isn't an open format?  JPEG 2000 never really took off.  I'm doubting Google's WebP will get anywhere either.

(16/03/2012 08:33 AM)hibbyware Wrote:  I've never been a fan of jpg with it being a lossy format and not supporting transparency.

It's mainly that many cameras will only output JPEG unfortunately.  And also the multitude of JPEGs across the internet.
Not a fan, but that's how things are...

(16/03/2012 09:17 PM)Assassinator Wrote:  Here's an example...

PNG was designed to be a patent unencumbered version of GIF (at the time, there were doubts over LZW compression used in GIF), so it was never designed to compress photo like images.
It's filters are very simple, designed to work well with simple graphical images (eg logos, simple cartoons etc), so you pretty much chose an example of what PNG is bad at doing.

Interestingly, the JPEG XR encoder in XnView at 100% quality seems to give larger sizes than PNG.

(This post was last modified: 16/03/2012 09:46 PM by ZiNgA BuRgA.)