JPEG is looking in including DRM system to its image format

[Mooshi]

So this will effect Second Life users...? I can't really think of much else for JPEG 2000 beyond super niche things a good chunk of people wouldn't even care about. As a file format, JPG is super awful with its horrific compression that it makes no logical sense to cripple the format even further. 

[pit5000]

As somebody who would like to get into photography, I don't think this would work out right. I would rather just watermark all my work.

[Syntaxvgm]

It would prevent people from right clicking and "save picture as" on images(watermarked or not), and if you do sneaky tricks to download the image it (hopefully) wont open.

buuut whatever you can display can be saved. 

[MercianUK]

no one even uses jpeg 2000 so what will this even be used for

 

Did you (or the 6 people who liked your post) read anything beyond first line of the quoted section? They're looking at moving the DRM implemented in JPEG 2000 DRM over to the base JPEG format.

 

I don't see why it's a big issue to be honest, it's a horrible format for most of the things it's typically used for any way. If this drives the development/adoption of better alternatives, or even encourages people to think more about what format they're using, it's all for the best.

 

I can live with not being able to download JPEGs with horrible compression artefacts. If it's meant to be shared, it should be in a different format anyway and, as people have pointed out, there will still be ways around it; it's practically impossible to completely protect an image on someone's screen.

 

I'd be astounded if they go ahead with this. If JPEG 2000 already serves this niche, why deprecate the adopted use of JPEG for no good reason? The ironic fact that it's probably one of the most shared image formats online and has horrible lossy compression is probably more detrimental to image piracy in itself than forcing people to use another format would be.

[LAwLz]

I know, but I assume you mean PNG. Even worse what you suggest as they can't be opened with standard image editing, and not web ready. If you are going to replace an image format in 2015, better make it lossless compression format, like PNG, and not replace crap with something less crap, but still crap.

Did you even read the article he linked? BPG is fantastic and should definitely be the next standard for images. Either that or WebP.

BPG supports lossless quality.

You're using terrible logic here, saying that we should not use it because it can't be opened with a standard image editor or "it's not web ready" (whatever that means). If we followed that logic then we would still be stuck with H.262 or whatever. It is a chicken-and-egg problem, but to just say something is terrible and should not be used because of a lack of support means we will never have any progress in terms of file formats.

 

We only really need Microsoft and Google on board for the format to gain very wide support. But considering how shitty Microsoft has been with supporting new formats we will probably be stuck with JPEG for a very long time.

 

 

I've been calling for a new image format for ages now. I was super excited when Google announced WebP but sadly that never took off. Now we got BPG and that seems to get even less support than WebP did, despite being better.

[Syntaxvgm]

Did you even read the article he linked? BPG is fantastic and should definitely be the next standard for images. Either that or WebP.

BPG supports lossless quality.

You're using terrible logic here, saying that we should not use it because it can't be opened with a standard image editor or "it's not web ready" (whatever that means). If we followed that logic then we would still be stuck with H.262 or whatever. It is a chicken-and-egg problem, but to just say something is terrible and should not be used because of a lack of support means we will never have any progress in terms of file formats.

 

We only really need Microsoft and Google on board for the format to gain very wide support. But considering how shitty Microsoft has been with supporting new formats we will probably be stuck with JPEG for a very long time.

 

 

I've been calling for a new image format for ages now. I was super excited when Google announced WebP but sadly that never took off. Now we got BPG and that seems to get even less support than WebP did, despite being better.

web ready literally means web ready.

Means modern browsers support it 

[LAwLz]

web ready literally means web ready.

Means modern browsers support it 

So he just said there is a lack of support twice? Lack of support in modern web browsers has not stopped a lot of formats, such as HEVC, from becoming widely adopted and popular either.

For an image format we obviously want browser support, but with just a little push from Microsoft and Google that would happen very soon.

[bobhays]

Is WebP not Web ready?