Microsoft's HD Photo format considered for new JPEG standard
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted August 1st 2007 12:39PM
posted August 1st 2007 12:39PM
posted August 1st 2007 12:39PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
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.
what is wrong with JPEG?
I'm only a typical home user so I guess I'm not going to come across the limitations that professionals would see with JPEG, but I wasn't aware of any
JPEG is good unless you want to apply various filters, effects, touch-ups etc to high res pictures. Since JPEG is very lossy, you lose a lot of the spectrum and applying more than one filter creates major artefacts. Since most home cameras now sport 7 or 8 megapixels and jpeg was designed when low def images abounded and no one wanted to throw their photos onto large screens or TVs, its getting long in the tooth (but is just fine for many people).
What does the XR stand for?
Xtreem Resolution?
It's XP (a male version)
Kudos for keeping the reporting centered. I knew you could do it!
pixelated Micro$oft logo.. ROFL. good one.
So.. maybe a dumb question.. when they say "HD" photo, are they really talking about HDR (high dynamic range)? Because a widely-supported format for HDR would be super. Especially since that would cause more digital cameras to support it.
I'm always concerned when they make these new standards. Hopefully they make it easy for the simple user to use these files effectively, and to the fullest. With the possibility of combining a lossy and non-lossy into option into a single file type how can we easily identify what we are working with to stop further degradation of a files quality... Should "HD" be fitted with lossy data in the first place?
I realize it is early days but it's food for thought.
Uhmmm... To quote Ken Rockwelll: "It's JPEG 2000 all over again, but worse."
JPG 2000 was a new replacement for JPG. It offered at least as much improvement over JPG ten years ago as Windows Media Photo (Microsoft HD Photo) claims today.
Microsoft recently changed the name of an obscure, proprietary image file type, Windows Media Photo, to Microsoft HD Photo.
It, just like the long-forgotten JPEG 2000 format, offers the potential of a reduction in file sizes while retaining the same image quality. Just like JPEG 2000, it doesn't offer enough improvement to matter to enough people to let this proposal survive. Microsoft HD Photo will die, just as JPEG 2000 did.
Worse, JPEG 2000 was a standardized format contained within Photoshop, while Microsoft HD photo is not a standard: it's a proprietary proposal which requires you to enter into legal agreements with Microsoft (click licenses) in order to use it. If you agree to be bound by the Ts & Cs, it then works potentially as a plug-in.
JPG 2000 died because no one knew what it was and limited software could read it. It didn't offer anything more than incremental improvement, so it died like many other great ideas no one needed, like the Elcaset, AM Stereo radio and Betamax videocassettes.
Microsoft's proposal isn't even a standard: it's a proprietary Microsoft hack that requires, at best, for you and the people you hope might be able to see these files, to dick with driver and software downloads. MS only claims "comparable" performance to the dead JPEG 2000 format. If Microsoft HD Photo was better, or even as good, I presume they would have said so.
Read on: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/microsoft-hd-photo.htm
Ok... you're right, it's not a standard. This whole article is saying that it is being considered to BECOME A STANDARD. Try reading the article before posting about it.
Mark, my point is: Why is Microsoft (again, as ever) trying to reinvent the wheel? Basically, seven years ago, JPG2000 did what HD Photo does today.
Maybe because seven years ago, not everyone had a digital camera.
Aaargh! So, we can now all use JPG2000, especially as HD Photo does not offer huge advantages (if any) in comparison! Remember the whole 'reintventing the wheel'-thing? There is NO need for yet another file format.
There seems to be some misunderstanding among the commentors:
- Standardization does not mean it's an OPEN standard
- Standardization also does not mean it's NOT owned by Microsoft
- Standardization still does not mean you'll have to pay Microsoft to use it
From the report Engadget linked to:
"Although Microsoft has patents on the technology used in HD Photo, it has stated plans to make the specification available under its Open Specification Promise, which makes available certain Microsoft technologies to open-source developers."
Willingly choosing to support a format that Microsoft owns patents in is like walking into hell with a glass of ice water, only to find out that very quickly, that water evaporated and you're not getting any refills.
I'd be very cautious of any format standard where (parts of) the technology are owned by a major corporation, rather than an open standard where the standards body owns the complete format rather than the company or companies who developed the technology.
Sup KuraFire :)
I'd be surprised if you can find any hugely popular media file standard that /isn't/ owned by some corporation, by whole or in part.
Hey Uchendu, long time no see =) Fancy running into you on Engadget!
There's a difference. All formats we use today are developed by one or multiple companies and they all hold some remaining stake in it, but for the purpose of the format, they've opened it up completely for all to see and use — not the case with Microsoft's efforts in formats. ASF, WMV and now HD Photo — none fully opened up.
Perhaps they will with HD Photo, sure, but I've yet to see an actual report of that intention. And that worries me, and it's why thus far, very very few companies have signed on for HD Photo. Yes, the technology IS indeed superior to what JPEG is now*, but here's a question: where's the excited support from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Apple, Adobe, Mozilla, Opera etc.?
It's the same reason why JPEG2000 never quite succeeded. That, too, was a vastly superior technology to JPEG when it first came around.
Re: popular media formats...
They may be open to see and for consumers to use, but the companies that own them still collect royalties on them from software developers and content creators.
Well will all of the "old" photoediting apps still be able to deal with the new format? I mean if it is truley a new compression then wont the app have to be able to decompress it? Ohh Im a noob btw.......
"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."
Uh, no. Try using those WMA-DRM files on a Mac. Oops, MS doesn't license that technology outside of Windows.
Try using those WMA-DRM files on Linux. Oops, MS MS doesn't license that technology outside of Windows.
At least with AAC-DRM files you can always get them to CD-Audio and then back to whatever format you want.
I'll be writing the JPEG standards body to express my displeasure with this MS "standard".
@adi: wow, you know, you're a freakin scholar. skip your Ritalin(TM) today?
Let's see here - The most reliable web hosting runs on Linux (www.netcraft.com), Apple is growing at rates that are greater than the PC industry, Vista is pretty much DOA and the only one extoling the virtues of the MS Lock and Tie-in is you.
Sorry, I don't see it - I'll take the format that's available on whatever computer OS I choose. That would be MP3 and/or AAC.
I'd have to guess that the problem with WMA not playing outside of Windows is because other people aren't willing to license it, not because Microsoft isn't willing to license it to them. Since when has Microsoft ever turned down a dollar?
That's most definitely not the case - MS will license the DRM stuff to any vendor as long as it's not for use in an OS.
From http://www.flip4mac.com/faqs_wmv.htm - they make the only WMV decoder for Macs now since MS bailed.
"Can third parties build Windows Media DRM capable clients for the Mac?
Microsoft makes Windows Media DRM technology available for Windows operating systems and many device platforms. At this time, Microsoft has no plans to offer Windows Media DRM support on the Macintosh."
They (MS) pull this crap with WM(A/V) and we should trust them with our pictures? I don't think so - MS is all about locking you into Windows, plain and simple.
Who cares about a replacement/update for JPG (We have PNG and that's fine with me!)? I want something to definitively put an end to GIF.
I'd be happy with IE rendering PNG colors correctly.
And transparency... Gah, Massivesoft.
Although Microsoft has patents on the technology used in HD Photo, it has stated plans to make the specification available under its Open Specification Promise, which makes available certain Microsoft technologies to open-source developers.
----------------
Call me cynical, but I doubt Microsoft is going totally open here. They WILL want something from this. I think it's just a matter of time and/or legal crap before the sh%^ hits the fan with this.
i still work on xp
love the open mindof microsoft?