What is "old style" jpeg compression?

This might be a dumb question, but what is old style jpeg compression? And is it ok, or a bad thing? I notice when looking at the EXIF data on photos I've uploaded to Flickr, that the compression says JPEG (old style.)

I've never heard of it.

I just noticed this today as well.. no idea about it.

I suppose that's just 'regular' jpg compression, as opposed to jpg2000: http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/JPEG_2000

JPEG has evolved many times over the years since it's birth. It now includes standard, optimised and progressive methods as well as the aborted JPEG 2000 format which is destined to die and will soon be evolved again to be the Microsoft HD Photo spec which was ratified by J.P.E.G. to be the next step.

The oldest method currently in use is "Standard" but there are older which were phased out and can now only be read and not written by modern software.

Typically (old style) in EXIF means anything but the most current method and I know Flickr supports the latest MS HD Photo spec which is now known as JPEG XR.

HankScorpio wrote in post #10515736
JPEG has evolved many times over the years since it's birth. It now includes standard, optimised and progressive methods as well as the aborted JPEG 2000 format which is destined to die and will soon be evolved again to be the Microsoft HD Photo spec which was ratified by J.P.E.G. to be the next step.

The oldest method currently in use is "Standard" but there are older which were phased out and can now only be read and not written by modern software.

Typically (old style) in EXIF means anything but the most current method and I know Flickr supports the latest MS HD Photo spec which is now known as JPEG XR.

Thanks for the explanation! When I save my pics in PSE5, I just use the extention .jpg, which I suppose is the old or standard style. JPG 2000 is also an option but I've never used it. And I'm guessing PSE 5 is too old to have the newest options. So is it ok to continue to do what I've been doing?

Almost nothing supports jxr format at the moment. Even CS5 doesn't by default. It will eventally make it's way into cameras as it supports up to 48bit and lossless compression but for now, ignore it.

Kasrielle wrote in post #10516342
Thanks for the explanation! When I save my pics in PSE5, I just use the extention .jpg, which I suppose is the old or standard style. JPG 2000 is also an option but I've never used it. And I'm guessing PSE 5 is too old to have the newest options. So is it ok to continue to do what I've been doing?

There should be no problem using the tools you have -- otherwise any jpegs created some time "back then" would break. Jpeg is designed to be universally compatible, even if it uses "old" compression.

Of course there can be benefits from upgrading your Elements version, and there may be benefits for using newer compression algorithms, but this is not a "required" upgrade.

tonylong wrote in post #10517208
There should be no problem using the tools you have -- otherwise any jpegs created some time "back then" would break. Jpeg is designed to be universally compatible, even if it uses "old" compression.

Of course there can be benefits from upgrading your Elements version, and there may be benefits for using newer compression algorithms, but this is not a "required" upgrade.

I have PSE 8 but haven't installed it because there seem to be so many problems with it. When I get my next computer and Windows 7 (I'm still running XP) I'll have to upgrade, but I think I'll wait until then...

Kasrielle wrote in post #10517286
I have PSE 8 but haven't installed it because there seem to be so many problems with it. When I get my next computer and Windows 7 (I'm still running XP) I'll have to upgrade, but I think I'll wait until then...

I'm not aware of problems with Elements 8 on XP other than your normal glitches that occasionally can happen with any software. The question is whether PSE8 will provide benefits to you. You could install it, test it out, and if you encounter problems revert to PSE5...?

tonylong wrote in post #10517355
I'm not aware of problems with Elements 8 on XP other than your normal glitches that occasionally can happen with any software. The question is whether PSE8 will provide benefits to you. You could install it, test it out, and if you encounter problems revert to PSE5...?

A lot of folks have problems with the organizer, which worried me. And I don't think there are any huge editing advances, are there? Most folks on the adobe support forums seem to think 5 is one of the best versions...

So is the old compression any different in quality to the newer JPG2000?

Cheers

Kasrielle wrote in post #10517404
A lot of folks have problems with the organizer, which worried me. And I don't think there are any huge editing advances, are there? Most folks on the adobe support forums seem to think 5 is one of the best versions...

Well, the Adobe forums would definitely be a good place for info there! If the weight of advice is to stick with PSE5, then go for it! You can do a ton of stuff with Elements, and there are add-ons that let you do more. So, go for it!

BobbyDigital wrote in post #10519039
So is the old compression any different in quality to the newer JPG2000?

Cheers

JPEG 2000 is very different to standard JPEG in the way it encodes. Compression artefacts show as rings instead of the blocks you see with standard jpeg but 2000 also supports lossless compression as well as security features and also houses motion jpeg video format. It's kind of an abandoned format though as it didn't offer much over normal jpeg and couldn't offer enough over things like tiff for higher end use. It is a nice format though, better in many ways to JPEG XR.