Microsoft's HD Photo format considered for new JPEG standard
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Aug 1st 2007 12:39PM
posted Aug 1st 2007 12:39PM
posted Aug 1st 2007 12:39PM
The percentage of sales people that recommend Samsung HDTVs.
Salespeople are also becoming less likely to recommend LCD sets over plasma sets, which goes against the industry trend.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Release the spec, make it an open standard, and I don't mind.
Until then, cram it up your ass, Microsoft.
That's exactly what they are trying to do. And I hope they do it. We need a better JPG.
wow your an idiot, what do you think they are doing, they're trying to get HD Photo implemented as JPEG XR,
stop jerking off and start reading whats actually happening, god i hate people that bash microsoft for no reason
Wow, you don't think I know that?
Allow me to rephrase my initial post:
"If they do this, I won't mind."
Paloooz adds "rather lie than admit I'm wrong" to the list of characteristics he willingly demonstrates on Engadget.
@ paloooz
What did you mean by this then?
"Until then, cram it up your ass, Microsoft."
Seems counter to your "If they do this, I won't mind." comment.
You sound like a confused MS basher.
Well paloooz does have a point. Microsoft has an RFC out on the compression protocol for their PPTP, however, the compression algorithm is patented, meaning that it's useless for anyone to implement that doesn't feel like ponying up some cash to license the patent from them. That having been said, I doubt the JPEG will allow themselves to be fleeced like that, considering they release full source on their standards. So I'll give Microsoft a tentative "right on" for now. :)
I am not willing to accept a new "standard" that is not an open standard. Until it becomes an open standard, Microsoft can cram it up their ass. I really don't see how this is at all difficult to understand. "Make it open, or cram it up your ass" is totally 'on topic' for this summary. It's like "rooting" for the JPEG and anyone who is at all concerned about image formats.
Criticizing this comment is on the same level as ... being at a football game, rooting for your team, and having some dipshit next to you telling you "shut up, that's what they're trying to do."
To which I would say, "Wow, shut the fuck up."
Hey Engadget I thought you were going to start monitoring your comments. Is the one single poster here that gets as many negative comments as paloooz(er).
Of course it is more fun to feed the trolls. Like yesterday I felt bad for a little bird with one leg, the other was all shrivled and unusable so I throw him a piece of bread. My wife points to the sign that read "For health reason please do not feed the birds."
"Is the one single poster here that gets as many negative comments as paloooz(er)."
That is not a sentence.
I'm willing to forgive him for that; I don't really consider mindless trolls people, yet we all put up with you.
God, is there a bigger shill out there? We need to do a nationwide survey and see if he even has any competition.
"That is not a sentence."
that's what i was about to say.
is stephan trying to say that palooz gets ranked low often and is therefore a bad person or is he commenting on that one post being low ranked or is he saying engadget should monitor the rankings and stop palooz's comment from being ranked low, or is he saying palooze is usually the main or even the only person to be ranked high. i can't tell.
We already have JPEG2000 and PNG. Why another one?
Because it is better...you like progress, do you ? We even had .bmp at some point...
JPEG2000 is pretty computationally expensive to work with.
I'd also expect that focusing on HD-resolution images instead of smaller ones can lend some gains based on that assumption.
More compression formats are good, because then we can have more choice.
HD resolution images? You act like the images my digital camera puts out aren't more than 4 times the resolution of "HD."
He "acts like" that, paloooz? Where does he say any such thing?
JPEG was not specifically written for high resolution images. He was correct.
Can you take JPEG images in HD resolution? Sure. Is the compression optimal for that size of an image? Maybe not.
If you ASSUME that all the images you run through the algorithm will be HD resolution, you can then design your algorithm differently to take advantage of the properties of a massive image (for example, basic tiling instead of JPEG-style channel compression can be used).
Why would you want LOWER resolution images???
I don't follow you at all. Using words like "algorithm" doesn't make you right. This isn't an argument of "omgz I'm t3h smartz0rz" it's:
"This guy is saying we need to using images at 1920x1080, when we already can take images with mainstream cameras (like my D80) at 3872x2592! Why would you even care about 'HD resolution' when you already have images at 4 times the resolution of 'HD'"
The arguement is 1920x1080 vs. 3872x2592, and you are rooting for lower resolution. Here, let me turn DOWN the quality on my camera so I can take pictures at 1920x1080 because zomg! That's FABULOUS HIGH DEFINITION OMGZ!
Palooz,
HD, in this context at least, does not mean 1920x1080. That just happens to be the highest definition that most HDTVs display. Therefore, while HD includes 1920x1080, it also includes anything above -- e.g. 3872x2592.
Regardless of terminology, what ravuya is saying is that the original JPEG format was not designed for image sizes of 1920x1080, much less 3872x2592. While it can display images that large, it does not necessarily do it well. A format that is specifically designed for 1920x1080 OR HIGHER will do a better job of compression and maintaining image quality.
In other words, if an image of size 1920x1080 OR HIGHER is encoded in HD Photo, it should take up less space than it were encoded in JPEG, while maintaining the same (or higher) visual quality.
@paloooz
ravuya is saying that he is for the new standard because jpg (the current standard) is not optimized for large images. The term "HD photo" does not mean photos with resolutions equivalent to HD video dimensions. HD photo is the name of the format (previously named Windows Media Photo) kind like how jpeg is the name of the current standard. It does not indicate resolution. But judging by ravuya's phrasing, i am not certain he was aware of that either. Wikipedia has a good amount of info on the format including the licensing. it is not a straight up open source standard but instead will be offered under MS's Open Specification Promise, which asserts that Microsoft offers the specification for free, by request, allowing open source software to make use of it for no cost.
A new compression scheme does not a "breakthrough" make.
So .zip files WEREN'T a breakthrough and revolutionized the way we transferred and compressed files? Well tar and feather me, I must have been living under a rock all these years.
Don't be a donut. We're talking about this new image compression - it's only an evolution of the idea of data compression. In and of itself, this is not a "revolution".... it's a progression of the technology.
@JC, don't you mean "Well tar -c and feather me"?
;-P
the managerment beat me to it
CharlieX PLEASE tell me that was intentional :)
@TheManagement: Shouldn't that be 'well tar -c and gzip me?'
(Sorry, I had to!)
JPEG is too processor intensive to work with (even if it did work well). HD photo's algorithms are similar to processing a normal jpeg, which means it can be done in camera. Anyone who trys out the photoshop plug-in realizes that it offers a great alternative to both RAW and jpeg, while being an open standard.
I highly recommend everyone downloads the ThisWeekInMedia podcast discussion with Microsoft's Bill Crow on Image compression and HD Photo. One of the most informative podcast's I've listened to. http://media.libsyn.com/media/thisweekinmedia/twim_051_m64.mp3
I meant JPEG2000 is too hard to work with.
what's with the pixelated graphic? leave it to engadget to bash Microsoft in an post, even when the post isn't bashing Microsoft!
I think they're bashing the current lame JPEG standard, not M$. And they've got good reason, too. We need a good format that runs higher quality than our current jpeg format, that isn't as large as png. Of course, it won't be the same quality as a png, but if it uses less space, I'm willing to compromise.
It's not bashing MS, it's just retro, and retro is in.
It's cool - for a second I thought the image hadn't finished loading, then I laughed.
So much for microsoft not innovating right? Cue the thousands of apple fanboys posting how microsoft somehow stole it from apple. (oh and I love all the posts hating microsoft and telling them to make it open which is exactly what this article says they're doing)
Yah, innovating. Just wait until the submarine patent surfaces after a few years of it being the "standard"... Now *that's* innovation!
Better formats are a must and I think Microsoft did really well with WMA. I get frustrated a web developer in sacrificing quality for size and always trying to find the sweet spot where my files are smallest but quality is best.
WMA? Are you serious? Proprietary, patent-encumbered, and DRM-infested is better? Better than what, herpes?
Yes WMA. It does have DRM (that can be broken) but I don't use DRM on my CD Rips and it works great with many devices. It's odd that such a horrible standard is even supported by rivals Sony (on the PSP) and Linux flavours. I find the file sizes to be smaller and the quality better at lower bit rates such as 64 when adding to a mobile device where storage is limited such as my PDA.
I don't know why your angry with Microsoft when Apple used DRM up until earlier this year (and still does for none EMI Music) but atleast WMA DRM was licensed to multiple devices where as with Apple you were stuck with the iPod.
gotta agree i've transcoded all of my videos (over 500) and all my music into WMA and WMV... the fact is the files are smaller while maintaining the quality.
ya wow its horrible they added drm optional, they gave studios a feature they were begging for, how horrible of them lol
WMA is good. Just don't use the DRM portion of it.
You have a choice.
@BudgetGone
WMA is patented, as you say, but so are MP3, AAC, and everything else (except Vorbis). However, the cost to license WMA is about $.20 per device, whereas the cost to license AAC is roughly 10 times higher. It's better and cheaper than MP3, and it's as good and cheaper than AAC (which has been known to also support DRM). So, why do you hate WMA?
he hates WMA because Microsoft refuses to support his iPod. (yes, that's sarcasm, I know it works the other way around)
Cut the hate already (all directions). You'd think most readers had been personally injured by MS, Apple, etc. Cameras convert to JPEG on the fly but there's only so far that can go and its lousy compared to RAW. This algorithm will be useful if its integrated into cameras so we maybe can avoid the camera-maker-specific RAW (CR2, etc) handling. It's good its coming from MS since the camera makers are less likely to one in on a competing camera makers solution. I bet Thorsten Lempke will have it running in GraphicConverter the same day the code is released.
This is in now way a suitable replacement for RAW.
I have been personally injured by Microsoft. Before I dumped it, I spent thousands of hours cleaning up after their horrible excuse for an OS. Countless reboots, myriad reinstalls, thousands of virus scans. I'll never get those hours back.
Not to replace RAW, but to interject between it and jpeg. The gap is too wide.
"Not to replace RAW, but to interject between it and jpeg. The gap is too wide."
Really, then, what's the point? Are we really doing anything with *jpeg's* that we're unsatisfied with the quality of? There's already an image standard between RAW and jpg - it's called TIFF. It's raster, it's compressed, but it's completely lossless. The only reason we have jpg's is for snapshots and for posting stuff up on the net. And if you just want something to post on the net, you're never gonna notice any difference between a decent quality regular JPG and any "HD" JPG. You're only getting about 110dpi out of most monitors and a color gamut that usually doesn't even approach NTSC, let alone what any camera sensor is capable of.
I just don't understand who this new standard is supposed to be for. It's like McDonald's saying they want to introduce a new drink size to fill the gap between "medium" and "large" called "medium HD". Are there really a lot of people out there that are still thirsty after drinking a medium but for whom a large is just too much?
A computationally more efficient compression than JPEG (and TIFF!!) is important in cameras for several reasons including the write time for images, transfer times over USB2, effective archiving, etc. I shoot to RAW because I want the option of being able to filter later. JPEGs are not good enough (in my view) and severely degrade the image if you apply filters. But shooting to RAW means longer shoot times, fewer shots per card, and slower transfers. This will be adopted in pro cameras first and then make its way to consumer cameras (as an option along with JPEG).
Actually, for those above, HD Photo IS AN ALTERNATIVE to RAW. First, I've made 20 revisions to the same files and not seen compression artifacts. Second, you have 8, 16, or 32bit! options == HDR anyone? 3rd, it's built into Vista and it's supposedly equal in processing time to normal jpeg, which allows for longer in-camera bursts.