1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Microsoft's new picture format gaining momentum

Discussion in 'News' started by zekrahminator, Jan 27, 2007.

  1. zekrahminator

    zekrahminator McLovin

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,114 (2.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    321
    Location:
    My house.
    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.
    [​IMG]

    Source: CNET
  2. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,756 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,468
    mmm photoshop cs3
  3. RickyG512 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    477 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    Croydon, England
    wat is jpeg-2000 in dat pic
  4. pt

    pt not a suicide-bomber

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,982 (2.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    208
    Location:
    Portugal
    i was asking that to myself too :confused:
  5. Benpi New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    415 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    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.
  6. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    How long has this war been going on?
    I thought I read something about changing jpeg back in 2001/2002?
  7. Jannu New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    42 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Location:
    Tallinn, Estonia
    Well they have been developing it for 10 FRIGGIN YEARS!!
  8. evil bill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    370 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Location:
    Scotland
    are they doing Duke Nukem Forever too :laugh:
  9. xman2007

    xman2007 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    634 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    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
  10. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,756 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,468
    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
  11. Dippyskoodlez New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,061 (1.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Location:
    Ohio
    Exactly.

    Unless its simple/easy to get/access, universally usable (cough wmv? cough), it wont get far..
  12. Nothgrin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    145 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    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?
  13. Dark Ride Mushkin Rep

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    542 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    *Thread cleaned*

    Quit the flaming.
  14. XooM New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    479 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Location:
    Close to FrozenCPU.com
    because obviously jpeg's pervasiveness is all about its format superiority; other formats, like png, are clearly inferior.

    GLHF MSFT.
  15. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,796 (3.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    they are just out to rule the world I believe. I want great quality photos in lossless compression and small sizes
  16. prime95 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    166 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    or higher data transfer speeds, huge a$$ photo sizes, and larger data capacity!
  17. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    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

    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.
  18. Nyte New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    185 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    34
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    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.
  19. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    Wow... HD Photo = higher compression than JPEG?
  20. Lazzer408

    Lazzer408

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,534 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Location:
    Illinois
    :roll:
  21. zekrahminator

    zekrahminator McLovin

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,114 (2.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    321
    Location:
    My house.
    Woah, you really know your stuff :).
  22. kakazza New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    470 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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 ;)
  23. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,668 (7.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,980
    Location:
    some AF base
    :roll: i also like PNG the best :D but use jpeg for internet stuffs cause its just easier
  24. kakazza New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    470 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Well, with IE7 they fixed the png alpha transparency bug, no lame JS hack anymore ;)
  25. XooM New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    479 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Location:
    Close to FrozenCPU.com
    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:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page