Anyone heard of this new format .jpg? Well, don't worry, you're not the only one.

JPEG - Joint Photographic Experts Group

(.JPG file extension, pronounced Jay Peg). This is the right format for those photo images which must be very small files, for example, for web sites or for email. The JPG file is wonderfully small, often compressed by 90%, or to only 1/10 of the size of the original data, which is very good when modems are involved. However, this fantastic compression efficiency comes with a high price. JPG uses lossy compression (lossy meaning "with losses"). Lossy means that some image quality is lost when the JPG data is compressed and saved, and this quality can never be recovered.

Most other file compression methods are lossless, which means "fully recoverable". Lossless compression always returns the original data, bit-for-bit identical without any question about differences (losses). We are used to saving data to a file, and getting it all back when we next open that file. Our Word and Excel documents, our Quicken data, any data at all, we cannot imagine NOT getting back exactly the original data. TIF, PNG, GIF, BMP and most other image file formats are lossless too. This integrity requirement does limit efficiency, limiting compression of photo image data to maybe only 10% to 40% reduction in practice (graphics can be smaller). But most compression methods have full lossless recoverability as the first requirement.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

I don't think anything will change for the moment... everyone uses MP3s and just won't embrace a new format for the time being

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I'm down with OBP Yeah you know me

lmfao


igottaknow, where can one find these JPEG's of which you speak?


ahhh nevermind they'll never catch on

quote:

Originally posted by goonerjack I don't think anything will change for the moment... everyone uses MP3s and just won't embrace a new format for the time being

MP3 will be here until there is a new format that can compress more, without sacraficing sound quality. We all have heard of MP3pro Ogg Vorbis, etc. but none of these are significantly better than the current standard MP3 format.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by insecurity lmfao igottaknow, where can one find these JPEG's of which you speak? ahhh nevermind they'll never catch on

Actually I'm in the process of converting all my jpgs and gifs to png format but that's another thread.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Jul-06-2004 at 23:19

Okay, okay, i get it:
You all think I'm presenting you with a gift from the gods,
That I've only just heard of ogg, & that this thread is just one big joke...
Well up yours, all of you, cos that's not the point at all.
My point is that nobody fucking uses ogg.
Why? Cos it isn't popular, isn't that great, or isn't practical enough for some of you. That was my point; in fact, those quotes that seemed so funny r so becos they really are jokes. I know ogg's been around for a while now, that it is better than MP3 and that lossless is a growing alternative; but still, ogg's only going to be as popular as we make it. Can u think of a better way for it to override MP3? Huh, can ya, punks?! I mean that is what we want, rite?

I just format my songs to 128kbps to save space.

___________________
/SARCASM.

quote:

Originally posted by Coup Vlad wins. Flawless victory.

quote:

Originally posted by itch I know ogg's been around for a while now, that it is better than MP3 and that lossless is a growing alternative; but still, ogg's only going to be as popular as we make it. Can u think of a better way for it to override MP3? Huh, can ya, punks?! I mean that is what we want, rite?

Ogg format barely gets better compression than MP3 (if at all), and Sound quality is no where near being better.

Can I think of a better way to override MP3s? No I can't, because there is nothing out there that can do the job. Over the years we've seen numerous alternatives to MP3s, but MP3s are here to stay for years to come.

Do we want to replace MP3s? No! MP3s are fine the way they are. We will not start converting our collections to any other format, because there is nothing else out there that has a better compression/sound-quality ratio better than MP3. I mean, sure you can convert your collection to MP3pro or Ogg, but you are just wasting your time over saving a few KB's.

___________________

All I'm saying is that it's inevitable that things change, so why not speed up the process while also supporting leading programs (and yes, ogg is definitely better than MP3; don't believe me? try it out for yourself). Sure some people think that we need a bigger phenomenon to change our minds on this one, but we aren't talking about "a few kb's". I saved over 2GB (~6 -> ~4GB); u call that "a few kb's"? Not to mention that I hear absolutely no difference in quality (again, if u think I don't no what I'm talking about, see it for yourself).

I have tried it for myself: MP3pro AND Ogg.

And any compression that Ogg does to make the average file smaller than the average MP3 will result in sound quality loss.

Sound quality is easily noticeable by any audiophile (such as myself and alot of TA's like me).

Of course you won't notice the sound quality difference on a cheesy little desktop system with no sound card. Get a real high-end system and you can tell without a doubt.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by itch Can u think of a better way for it to override MP3? Huh, can ya, punks?! I mean that is what we want, rite?

"Go ahead, make my day."

Ah yeah, the other thing is that hardly any stereos/CD players support OGG... because my computer sound system is crap, i only ever listen to trance on my hifi - so until a development is made with stereos then i'll be sticking to MP3