Microsoft formally launches HD Photo

Microsoft formally launched HD Photo, a new file format for digital images, at the big Photo Marketing Association trade show that's going down in Las Vegas this week. Not exactly a surprise, since they've been talking about it for a while now (you may recall that HD Photo used to be known as Windows Media Photo), but the big news is that they're pushing it hard with a plug-in for Photoshop (for both Windows and OS X) and native support for the new format in Vista. There's no doubt that HD Photo is a more efficient imaging codec than JPEG -- the older standard is most definitely showing its age -- but JPEG is more or less the defacto standard that everyone has rallied around and it'll take a lot to get people to switch. As far as we know no manufacturers have announced plans to ship digital cameras that shoot in HD Photo (even as an option along with JPEG and/or RAW), and even though Microsoft is being pretty liberal with licensing terms for HD Photo, they still own the patents on it and aren't planning on donating the standard to the public domain any time soon.

[Mr Lizard @ Mar 9th 2007 3:00AM]

I hate to be cynical, but what's stopping Microsoft pulling support for this new file format for OS X?

Not sure I like the idea of every photo I take being 'held to ransom' by a large corporation.

Besides, is a new photo format really necessary? What with RAW format really starting to filter down into the mainstream, I reckon the next logical 'step up' from JPEG is already here.

[JoshLowry @ Mar 9th 2007 3:06AM]

Hopefully this turns out to be a great new file. The jpg has it's many flaws, but it is practically the most popular image file format on earth! Does anyone know if the file extension is "*.hd" or what?



- Josh


Where's your head at? - www.StateOfBrain.com

[cordite @ Mar 9th 2007 3:07AM]

Well said.

If they were really serious about driving business towards their own products that support this then it would be open much like thier other imaging format, TIFF.

[newc @ Mar 9th 2007 3:42AM]

Isn't there a perfectly good new improved JPG format called, er, JPG ? (OK, JPG2000, to be precise). Why would anyone want to switch to yet another proprietary format ? Why don't any of these corporations look at the non-success of proprietary formats in any area where an open standard exists (yes Sony, I'm looking at you), and just give it up.

[Castle @ Mar 9th 2007 3:43AM]

There's a whole issue with proprietary file formats and licensing and patents, and it would be horrible if Microsoft comes out years later to sue everybody for patent infringement like the whole can of worms that happeded gif, jpeg lawsuits.

Jpeg2000 was also supposed to be far better then Jpeg, but that format failed as well.

[Revrant2394 @ Mar 9th 2007 3:58AM]

Ah this old story again, Microsoft is trying, but it should open up the format instead of seeking to make money from it if it does indeed intend to make it the new bulkhead on it's shiny new ship Vista and beyond.

There's not much wrong with JPEG, for the every day it fills the role in ways that no other format seems to manage, of course on the high end you can't really use it due to the artifacts and modest color problems, but I don't see any proprietary format replacing JPEG, though this one is pretty nice overall compared to the higher end formats floating around.

[Brian C @ Mar 9th 2007 4:00AM]

Jpeg definitely is showing its age. All professional photographers wouldn't shoot in JPEG. They shoot in RAW. Unfortunately different camera manufacturers have their own version of RAW and too bad if one day a manufacturer goes bankrupt and you end up with all the RAW images that no one would support. We need a better format that is a standard to safeguard the images. And this standard is not JPEG or JPEG2000 for sure.

[Devon Shaw @ Mar 9th 2007 4:23AM]

Remind me again why RAW and PNG don't suffice for their respective purposes?

JPEG might not be perfect, but this is quite unnecessary.

[Sinbios @ Mar 9th 2007 5:12AM]

So, what exactly does this format offer that existing formats don't? I'm not a MS basher or anything, but right now, gif works for animation, jpg works for quick-n-dirty, png works for lossless (and transparency!), RAW works for high quality photography storage. Where is the demand for a new format?

[Finite @ Mar 9th 2007 6:14AM]

Hmm.. Well, a few points the HD Photo format is supposed to offer data compression twice as efficient as JPEG, with twice the quality of JPEG at a given file size...

Also (taken from cnet) "It can store 16 or 32 bits of data for each color, compared with JPEG's 8 bits, making it easier to discern shadow details or the subtle tonal variations of snow in sunlight."

As JPEG ages, there will be need for a better format, and Microsoft wants it to be HD Photo.

As for RAW, it's proprietary as of now, with different cameras using different RAW formats.. not good. There are companies working toward an open standard RAW (or, at least, a standard RAW format) currently too.

So, both of these formats actually will be replaced eventually, microsoft just wants to be the first ones in with an option.

[Carbonize @ Mar 9th 2007 6:17AM]

Credit to them for trying but I doubt it will catch on. People get to stuck in their ways. OGG is better than MP3 but as MP3 was the first that is what people instantly think of when you say digital audio format. People are to scared to try new things and so we get stuck in a rut.

[grable @ Mar 9th 2007 7:41AM]

Another lock-in strategy from microsoft, no thanks.

[Chris @ Mar 9th 2007 8:53AM]

its an open standard not a microoft standard get your facts before you start screaming conspiracy

[k0a10 @ Mar 9th 2007 10:32AM]

You missed the part where MS owns patents. So it is a "standard" where MS can start suing people whenever they feel like it. Real standards don't work this way. This is what happened with RAMBUS, and it was a debacle. Groups are always trying to find a real open standard, where everyone agrees not to follow up on patent claims, so we can just get on with it, but slimier companies always find a way to mess things up rather than just taking the inherent advantage of being the first mover. So we will end up with more fragmentation, not less. So much for progress.

If it were a real standard, it would have involved multiple lead groups in the announcement making real promises about it being open, not just Microsoft and their current pet partner.

[Rick Lyon @ Mar 9th 2007 9:10AM]

So M$ is trying to make money off of something else that is already entrenched?

[mathew @ Mar 9th 2007 10:13AM]

It may be better than JPEG, but is it better than JPEG2000?

[SH @ Mar 9th 2007 11:04AM]

Ah great, another huge corporation trying to pawn their proprietary formats on us. MS and Sony can go to h*ll. Also, notice how they use "HD" in the name to try to fool the fools.

[Twist @ Mar 9th 2007 11:19AM]

Sorry M$ but I will be sticking with DNG, PNG, and plain old JPG (unless JPG2000 ever gets its act together). I don't see that their new format is filling any need. Maybe five or so years ago before PNG support got decent (does the latest version of IE properly render transparent PNG's when used as the background of a block level element yet or do they still look horrible?).

[kL @ Mar 9th 2007 2:29PM]

It won't catch on.

* It's not guaranteed to be patent-free. That's what killed JPEG2000.
* It's not significantly better than JPEG2000.
* For some it may not be significantly better than old JPEG (notice how many sites still use (non-animated) GIFs although PNG beats them in every way)
* AFAIK HDPhoto/WMPhoto can't replace RAW - it's a JPEG killer, not a RAW killer. To kill RAW it would have to be optimised as losless and support all kinds of weird stuff that manufacturers use in their RAWs.
* Wherever lossy quality is acceptable, JPEG works just fine (maybe it's not perfect, but good enough and fully interoperable).