Microsoft WMP vs. JPEG-2000 comparison

thanks for sharing your research! Looks like WMP will be interesting, I think as long as they give codecs to other companies (adobe, mozilla, etc) to use the image format, it could become very popular very quick ;). btw, what will we have to call windows media player now? ;)

I just hope this don't get in my camera...

Ah, Bill Crow has provided some and concerns about the methodology; it's nice to see him posting again. Given the very flexible licensing compared to other windows media, I don't have the antipathy a lot of folks seem to toward the new format. I mean, free until 2010 and for anything running on windows? (I wonder how this applies to the cross-platform libavcodec, which I couldn't figure out even after rereading the full license agreement.) I doubt it'd ever be like the unisys debacle, since they're being very upfront about the terms. I'm waiting to see what support it garners beyond the operating system and how good it really is, when I'll make my choice.

Does anyone know if WMP supports transparency? All I have to say about which format I prefer and use most. I hands down say PNG. The size is so good for the quality. It's also the best compressed file type I've found that has transparency, which is essential to picture editing in PhotoShop/PaintShop/Publisher/InDesign-type software. PNG doesn't compress well, but its standard quality and file size is very good. As long as broadband increases in speeds and as file-sizes on pictures become less of a hassle (which will happen), I hope to see more PNG pictures as opposed to JPG or WMP. It's about time for picture quality to be high.

buying customers is not as easy as buying manufacturers ;P