(11-20-2017, 07:38 AM)Ofnuts Wrote: Features are rarely removed from the standard. The possible reasons for the absence of "progressive" JPEG in devices:Curiously, I also was surprised to see that the "progressive" format results in smaller files. Possibly not enough to be a big deal but still another minor benefit..
- It could require a bit more CPU (these devices have very small CPUs, for cost/power reasons)
- People may not like the "progressive" display (it can likely be avoided at the cost of more RAM)
- Device manufacturers don't do the software, they license it (or steal it...) from some software company that never bothered to update to the latest standard (why spend money when people still buy it)
- People don't return the device if it doesn't work with progressive JPEG (they assume it's something wrong with their images, or the software that produced it), so manufacturers just don't find it worth supporting the whole standard.
My objective has little to do with how the files are displayed but rather that they DO display on the most universal set of future devices. The only reason that "progressive" would be better for me is if it became so common that the alternative (e.g., whatever that might be called) is omitted from future implementations. Of course this could be provoked by continued development of more options creating stronger desire/need to omit some past capability that may be seen at some future time as so antiquated to never be used.
I'll try to find some folks with newer TVs than mine to see if "progressive" has finally overcome some of the obstacles mentioned but don't know how quickly that might happen.
Also, is there a way to tell which method is used from examining a file that has already been created?
Thanks again for your help!