Saturday, January 27th 2007

Microsoft's new picture format gaining momentum

Microsoft, back in May, began promoting it's new "Windows Media Photo" standard, which has been since renamed HD Photo. Microsoft is very clear with it's ambitions: They want to replace JPEG as the primary format for pictures. While some would argue that overtaking JPEG as the most popular picture format is a bit overzealous, Microsoft has two figurative ace-in-the-hole's. The first is that Microsoft will be shipping it with Windows Vista. That means that people who use Windows Vista will be able to see HD Photo, regardless of the photo viewer. This isn't exactly the kind of thing you need to switch people to a picture format. So Adobe systems will patch Photoshop CS3 after it is released to support HD Photo. This will allow users to save their pictures in HD Photo. CNET editors call these methods "pervasive", but they could very well be effective. The picture below shows what the difference is between JPEG and HD Photo when talking about compression. The less color in the picture, the less distortion there is, so ideally a perfect compression would be pitch black.

Source: CNET
Add your own comment

26 Comments on Microsoft's new picture format gaining momentum

#3
pt
not a suicide-bomber
by: RickyG512
wat is jpeg-2000 in dat pic
i was asking that to myself too :confused:
Posted on Reply
#4
Benpi
Just as long as it's compatible, I'm all for WMPhoto. The more efficient the better. I just hope that you can adjust Alpha in WMPhoto for web pages - if you can, it would be the future of Web images.
Posted on Reply
#5
EastCoasthandle
How long has this war been going on?
I thought I read something about changing jpeg back in 2001/2002?
Posted on Reply
#6
Jannu
by: EastCoasthandle
How long has this war been going on?
I thought I read something about changing jpeg back in 2001/2002?
Well they have been developing it for 10 FRIGGIN YEARS!!
Posted on Reply
#7
evil bill
by: Jannu
Well they have been developing it for 10 FRIGGIN YEARS!!
are they doing Duke Nukem Forever too :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#8
xman2007
well if its better than jpeg why not show us the real jpeg and hd photo side by side instead of the physcadelic negatives, how can you say "oooooo thats better ?" because Micro$hit says the less colour the better, that could be the case but still not make a difference to the naked eye. wheres the real life comparison ?

micr0$ux :p
Posted on Reply
#9
W1zzard
even if its a superiour format its success depends on widespread clients for it .. which means _all_ web browsers (including open source) have to support it

there have to be a wide range of authoring programs for it, not only cs3

and last the license has to be free, this almost killed gif several years back
Posted on Reply
#10
Dippyskoodlez
by: W1zzard
even if its a superiour format its success depends on widespread clients for it .. which means _all_ web browsers (including open source) have to support it

there have to be a wide range of authoring programs for it, not only cs3

and last the license has to be free, this almost killed gif several years back
Exactly.

Unless its simple/easy to get/access, universally usable (cough wmv? cough), it wont get far..
Posted on Reply
#11
Nothgrin
The question is how are the file sizes affected by HD Photo. We all know the difference between HD DVD and DVD is huge so how will that affect the file sizes of a simple image? Will it be less than Bitmap which has no compression? or will it add in an Alpha value like Targas which make them even bigger?
Posted on Reply
#12
Dark Ride
Mushkin Rep
*Thread cleaned*

Quit the flaming.
Posted on Reply
#13
XooM
because obviously jpeg's pervasiveness is all about its format superiority; other formats, like png, are clearly inferior.

GLHF MSFT.
Posted on Reply
#14
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
they are just out to rule the world I believe. I want great quality photos in lossless compression and small sizes
Posted on Reply
#15
prime95
or higher data transfer speeds, huge a$$ photo sizes, and larger data capacity!
Posted on Reply
#16
ex_reven
by: WarEagleAU
they are just out to rule the world I believe. I want great quality photos in lossless compression and small sizes
i seriously doubt you can have either two of those together
they might be able to make the compression more efficient
but as size decreases, quality will ALWAYS go down track in some way shape or form

by: prime95
or higher data transfer speeds, huge a$$ photo sizes, and larger data capacity!
Seems a like a much better albeit more expensive option. But if the technology was developed and advertised to the wider population, it could be cost effective. Especially since people can usually make use of these advantages (faster connections, faster file access) in other ways that just their photo quality.
Posted on Reply
#17
Nyte
As a person who has worked with Jpeg2000 decoding/encoding as well as reading IEEE publications on HD photo, I can safely say that Microsoft has done their research.

Although, I feel a bit bad for the JPEG committee... they spent a long time on Jpeg2000 (it's not a bad algorithm mind you, but HD photo is alot better).


The only downside to HD photo is that the quantization factor is specified directly by manufacturer, not by the user whereas in Jpeg2000 (and even Jpeg), you can control the quantization factor.
Posted on Reply
#18
tkpenalty
Wow... HD Photo = higher compression than JPEG?
Posted on Reply
#19
Lazzer408
by: evil bill
are they doing Duke Nukem Forever too :laugh:
:roll:
Posted on Reply
#20
zekrahminator
McLovin
by: Nyte
As a person who has worked with Jpeg2000 decoding/encoding as well as reading IEEE publications on HD photo, I can safely say that Microsoft has done their research.

Although, I feel a bit bad for the JPEG committee... they spent a long time on Jpeg2000 (it's not a bad algorithm mind you, but HD photo is alot better).


The only downside to HD photo is that the quantization factor is specified directly by manufacturer, not by the user whereas in Jpeg2000 (and even Jpeg), you can control the quantization factor.
Woah, you really know your stuff :).
Posted on Reply
#21
kakazza
I still love .png, lossless compression :)

WAY smaller when taking screenshots of your desktop with very few different colors without artifacts. For ingame-screenshots however (large amount of colors) it is bigger than jpeg.



I know there are lossless operations for jpeg, but I use png for screenshots of my desktop with CPU-Z and shit, as mentioned before, way smaller and no artifacts around text.



I like how it's hdpdemo.jpg ;)
Posted on Reply
#22
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: kakazza
I still love .png, lossless compression :)

WAY smaller when taking screenshots of your desktop with very few different colors without artifacts. For ingame-screenshots however (large amount of colors) it is bigger than jpeg.



I know there are lossless operations for jpeg, but I use png for screenshots of my desktop with CPU-Z and shit, as mentioned before, way smaller and no artifacts around text.



I like how it's hdpdemo.jpg ;)
:roll: i also like PNG the best :D but use jpeg for internet stuffs cause its just easier
Posted on Reply
#23
kakazza
Well, with IE7 they fixed the png alpha transparency bug, no lame JS hack anymore ;)
Posted on Reply
#24
XooM
by: ex_reven
i seriously doubt you can have either two of those together
they might be able to make the compression more efficient
but as size decreases, quality will ALWAYS go down track in some way shape or form
So you're telling me that when you zip or rar an archive chunks of data mysteriously vanish? that a FLAC-encoded audio file is, after all, not 100% lossless compared to the original wave file? :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#25
Nothgrin
by: XooM
So you're telling me that when you zip or rar an archive chunks of data mysteriously vanish? that a FLAC-encoded audio file is, after all, not 100% lossless compared to the original wave file? :rolleyes:
the downside of a rar or zip file is the time taken to uncompress afterwards... even though the file sizes are smaller on zip and rar but they carry the same data and it has to be decompressed before it can be used.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment