http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/ Engadget Comments for Microsoft formally launches HD Photo http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
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. ]]>Mar 9th 2007 3:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/


- Josh


Where's your head at? - www.StateOfBrain.com]]>Mar 9th 2007 3:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
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.]]>Mar 9th 2007 3:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
]]>Mar 9th 2007 3:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
Jpeg2000 was also supposed to be far better then Jpeg, but that format failed as well. ]]>Mar 9th 2007 3:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
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. ]]>Mar 9th 2007 3:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 4:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
JPEG might not be perfect, but this is quite unnecessary.]]>Mar 9th 2007 4:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 5:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
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.]]>Mar 9th 2007 6:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 6:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 7:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
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.
]]>Mar 9th 2007 10:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 9:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 10:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 11:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/Mar 9th 2007 11:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/09/microsoft-formally-launches-hd-photo/
* 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).
]]>Mar 9th 2007 2:29PM