Microsoft's HD Photo picked to succeed JPEG

The venerable JPEG image-compression standard is about to get a little bigger -- the international committee that regulates the standard just approved the creation of a format called JPEG XR based on Microsoft's HD Photo spec. The Joint Photographic Experts Committee started looking at standardizing HD Photo last month (formerly known as Windows Media Photo) because it features higher compression efficiency, better image fidelity, and more flexible in-camera editing options, and major camera makers and software vendors like Hasselblad and Adobe supported the format's metamorphosis into JPEG XR. It's not all cake and gumballs just yet, though -- although the committee approval process is over, it'll still take another year of work to clean up the spec and bring it in line with JPEG's standardization requirements. Now if only Microsoft would open up the rest of Windows Media, we'd be grinning from ear to ear.

[Via Electronista]

[m-p{3} @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:19PM]

Why not use PNG ? It's lossless a lossless format, it is compressed, and can't be open by many softwares.

[MegaZone @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:06PM]

Because PNG is not suited to this kind of use. PNG is primarily designed as a replacement for GIF. Different image formats are useful for different things. And JPEG XR will greatly extend the capabilities of JPEG, far beyond that PNG can manage - and PNG can't even measure up to today's JPEG for photos.

[blah @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:22PM]

According to that page listing the WMP components, the SDK is provided free of charge given you own a licensed copy of Windows. Distribution of your program also appears to be free. I assume as soon as you start to make money for your program, then Microsoft will ask for royalties. I would have to give it a full read, but after a cursory glance, thats what it appears to be.

However, my point still stands. You as the user and maker of the WMA pay nothing explicitly, except for the device that will ultimately play it.

Some of you have to understand that Microsoft wants prominence. Sure, they can make some money, but ultimately they want their name on the format. VC-1 itself is open. But they want control of it and their name behind it, not necessarily money (although it ends up being a concenquence). VC-1 turned out so well that even some movies on blu-ray are using that compression technique.

Also, im sure the standardization board wont let Microsoft f*ck around with this, so i would bet its safe for all to use free of charge.

[Dan Bugglin @ Nov 2nd 2007 11:17PM]

Because PNG is best for images with large areas of the same color. With photographs or images with large numbers of color, JPEG becomes the smaller format. A desktop screenshot can be 800kb in maximum compressed PNG but less than 200kb in maximum quality JPEG.

[kL @ Nov 3rd 2007 10:06AM]

PNG is always lossless. Lossless images have their use, but in case of photos sacrificing 5% of quality (which in case of cameras is probably within noise level) can easily result in 50% smaller file.

[Mile @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:19PM]

Will we have to pay 3 cents to MS everytime we use a pic in the new format?

[blah @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:27PM]

Do you have to pay any money to use a wma? Theres free conversion software out there in great abundance, and none of it requires a cent out of your pocket. But nice attempt though

[Neebs @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:26PM]

That's .63477342 MS points.

[tekdroid @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:44PM]

blah @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:27PM

Do you have to pay any money to use a wma? Theres free conversion software out there in great abundance, and none of it requires a cent out of your pocket. But nice attempt though
--------------
Someone always pays, be it on the serving/ streaming end, the hardware end or costs being transferred to the end-user when they buy their Widnows Media device...whatever.

Windows Media is not free and/or open at all. Free apps for end-users are offered to encourage use and deployment/reliance on a format, which is the same thing that happened with MP3. However, someone always pays in the end, usually in more than one way.

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx

[rav0 @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:57PM]

Actually, to create software that handles WMVs, Microsoft expects you to pay them. Any software that you can get for free to convert WMV is either absorbing the costs that they pay or is not paying them though by Microsoft they should. Eg Virtualdub, free video editor that Microsoft forced WMV support to be removed from

[Molly C @ Nov 3rd 2007 2:58AM]

According to Bill Crow, this will be a royalty-free format.

http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/archive/2007/07/31/industry-standardization-for-hd-photo.aspx
"Our goal is that HD Photo becomes JPEG XR, an open standard under the complete control of the JPEG Committee, with royalty-free rights to all required patents granted by Microsoft. Microsoft is actively participating with the JPEG Committee to produce a complete and detailed technical specification enabling anyone to create implementations in any programming language, on any platform and under a wide variety of business models."

[bombastinator @ Nov 3rd 2007 10:23AM]

But will it be a DRM free format? My biggest problem by far with WMP is the obnoxious level of DRM that wends it's way through it. I do not like for instance, having my computer quietly call a corporation and report my actions every time I view a file.
how

The other thing that bothers me abut microsoft "standards" is how they seem to turn out to only really be implementable through microsoft products. OOXML is one example. There have been analytical papers stating that ooxml is so difficult to program for that it effectively shuts out all other systems. From what I gather in this article there is every possibility that this new system is exactly the same way. If this is true it is not a standard at all, but rather a way to destroy standardization.

[Sam @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:29PM]

alright M$, leading the way!

[John @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:31PM]

The other windows media formats never impressed me much... WMA/WMV may have their fine points, but sticking with MP3 and divx/xvid + avi containers seemed to work just as well from my perspective. But at least Microsoft's made a format that will improve things for people

[Carbonize @ Nov 3rd 2007 8:30AM]

Because both AVI and MP3 are out dated and have been surpassed by newer formats. OGG is superior to MP3 and H264/X264 provide better quality than avi does. If we had the attitude of 'oh well that's good enough for me' we probably wouldn't even have computers.

As you said Microsoft is starting to realise there is more to life than making money and forcing your stuff on people.

[tekdroid @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:34PM]

Now if only Microsoft would open up the rest of Windows Media, we'd be grinning from ear to ear.
-------
As far as audio goes, they'd have their work cut out for them making something technically superior to Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, let alone open like they both are.

http://www.vorbis.com
http://flac.sourceforge.net

Independent content without hardware and software royalties to the toll-collectors is here for the taking (unlike mp3, mpeg formats, etc).

[Chrisphillers @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:40PM]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn! You Lossless Nazi's are so boring. Yes of course a lossless format will have better sound quality, but there is a consideration of disk space - hence compression. lossless and lossy formats both have their advantages and disadvantages and different uses.

PS I guess you dont have much do do now Oink is down!?

[Andir3.0 @ Nov 2nd 2007 11:44PM]

OGG is lossy. FLAC is not. OGG is actually smaller than MP3 with better sound.

[Russell @ Nov 3rd 2007 3:45AM]

LOL, WMA may not be "open" or "free" but it sure competes with OGG and FLAC.

WMA is better than MP3 at the same bitrate, and has multichannel support and lossless support that is quite good, dare I say better than FLAC and OGG? Why yes, I do.

I'll take 24 bit 96khz yet still nicely compressed WMA9 that I rip analog from my SACD/DVDA player through a pro studio card up against anything.

Oh and all the music I've ever gotten my hands on the real CD gets ripped in WMA Lossless.

All OGG/FLAC do is mean you have shit for library and playback devices. Vista Media Center / WMP 11 blow away the crappy media library systems on linux, plus I can stream all this UPNP to an extender/xbox.

[Jon @ Nov 3rd 2007 5:23AM]

I use both Ogg and WMA. Here is my personal experience but please don't take it as factual. I found WMA9 Pro with VBR is better than most codecs (including Ogg) at lower bitrates (less than 128Kb) where as I found that Ogg performs better than WMA at higher bitrates.

[Chris @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:49PM]

"Now if only Microsoft would open up the rest of Windows Media, we'd be grinning from ear to ear."

Heard of VC-1? Your wish was granted by SMPTE a year ago. But why report and know facts when you can bash Microsoft? The true Engadget way.

[Ed @ Nov 2nd 2007 11:19PM]

Speaking of being anti-microsoft/pro-apple...where is the news stories about the vulnerabilities in Leopard?!

[MegaZone @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:08PM]

VC-1 != 'the rest of Windows Media'

While VC-1 is basically a standardized version of the WMV9 codec, there is a lot more to Windows Media.

[tekdroid @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:12PM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1#Format

Although widely considered to be Microsoft's product, there are actually 15 companies in the VC-1 patent pool (as of August 17, 2006). As an SMPTE standard, VC-1 is open to implementation by anyone, although implementers are hypothetically required to pay licensing fees to the MPEG LA, LLC licensing body or directly to its members, who claim to hold essential patents on the format (since it is a non-exclusive licensing body).[1]

[Bloobie @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:15PM]

Why are you so defensive? No one is bashing Microsoft. They are stating a desire for MS to open up their other codecs. Although VC-1 was initially developed by Microsoft, there are actually 15 companies who "own" the patent(s) for it. As an SMPTE standard, it is open for implementation by anyone, but still requires a licensing fee.

[Zorque @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:37PM]

Why would they do that? They're a company, and they want to make money. Sure, they may do a lot of crappy things in pursuit of money, and I don't really want to defend those things, but what right do you have to complain that they don't devote hundreds of man-hours to create an open source version of software that you already get free with Windows?

[M @ Nov 2nd 2007 9:53PM]

I have read a bit on this and this announcment is pretty old.

I am not a Microsoft/Apple/Whatever fanboy, I just want progress and I do not care who does it. It looks good and way better than PNG.
M

[MegaZone @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:14PM]

Pretty old? This is a new announcement.

The fact that they were *considering* it has been known for several months, but the vote and decision to official move forward is new news.

[a robot @ Nov 2nd 2007 11:10PM]

How can it look better than PNG? PNG is _lossless_.

[jack @ Nov 2nd 2007 11:52PM]

@ a robot

Try storing a thousand "_lossless_" 20 MP pictures on a camera and tell me theres not a need to replace the JPEG standard. I'm sure PNG works great for drawing up those 1024x768 backgrounds on your PC but when you're working with real resolution compression is a reality.

[paloooz @ Nov 3rd 2007 2:08AM]

@jack - Idiot. Quantity != quality. Just because you can store more doesn't mean they look better.

[N30 G30 @ Nov 4th 2007 9:19PM]

@paloooz
What the hell did you just say?!

He didn't say that at all. Where did you come up with that crap?

The new format is better than PNG because it's smaller.

That's all he said.

[Super Cereal @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:00PM]

I think this is great! Considering MS makes software that feels years behind, we all should look 15 to 20 years younger in all our pictures!

[JR @ Nov 2nd 2007 11:52PM]

There already is a JPEG replacement, it's called jpeg2000.

[siriusfox @ Nov 3rd 2007 12:19AM]

Which no one uses.

This will be another format like Jpeg 2000. Sure it's got better quality, but not much better.

JPG delivers good enough quality, and people always throw that quality away to make the image as tiny as possible. Not only that but JPEG code is much FASTER than the JPEG 2000, because it's had so much use, that it's been worth the time to optimize it. JPEG 2000 has had no such luck. I doubt Microsoft's new format will be very different.

[Dragod @ Nov 3rd 2007 12:03AM]

I thought I heard about this a while ago... Hmm. Maybe I'm just psychic!... Or maybe I'm just crazy. You decide.

[Molly C @ Nov 3rd 2007 2:49AM]

What you heard about a while ago was that the JPEG organization approved a "work item" to standardize Microsoft's HD Photo spec. That happened back on July 31.

From what I read from the article, this new news (to be redundant) is that the voting nations have voted YES to go ahead and do this. So over the next year, Microsoft will re-write the spec according to the standard body's guidelines, and do tweaks and what-have-you. Then the spec will be voted on for final approval.

[futurepastnow @ Nov 3rd 2007 12:24AM]

It'll be a cold day in hell before I use this.

[Molly C @ Nov 3rd 2007 2:51AM]

Yes, let's refuse to use better technology because we irrationally hate the company that made it. *face_rolls_eyes*

[Mike @ Nov 3rd 2007 7:40AM]

That's cute that you think you have a choice. Are you just going to stop using the Internet entirely to avoid accidentally loading a JPEG XR file?

[crescentdavid @ Nov 3rd 2007 2:23AM]

Love the attempts to make a lossy format better quality. If you designed websites, you'd like it too.

[Molly C @ Nov 3rd 2007 2:51AM]

Yes, let's refuse to use better technology because we irrationally hate the company that made it. *face_rolls_eyes*

[Eli @ Nov 3rd 2007 6:28AM]

HD Photo is pretty similar to JPEG 2000, they both use wavelets instead of DCT. But HD Photo will succeed where JPEG2000 failed because it is significantly easier to encode on embedded hardware like digicams, just a few shifters and adders or whatever.

HD Photo also has a lossless mode, which I don't think JPEG 2000 had, or maybe it did.

[jpl @ Nov 3rd 2007 8:51AM]

Sure J2K has lossless mode: it is like inherent to the wavelet decomposition process (there is also the quantization stuff, but let's keep it simple for now). That is precisely why wavelet based codecs are better suited than DCT or simple GZIP like PNG.

The principle is called multiresolution analysis. In a sense, you can decompose the image in 2 parts: the average part and the detailed part. Do it recursively on the average part and you obtained a hierarchy of details, hence a multiresolution analysis.

Now, put these processed data in a file, sorted by their resolution: the "most averaged" part (low frequency) first, then the coarser details, then the finer details, ... You obtained a very special lossless encoding of your original image: if you keep the first half of the file, you are still able to decode it but just have less details. You could tune the encoding process so that you can keep any fraction of the file, say 9/10 of its size, and obtained an image with roughly 9/10 of quality (it's a bit more complicated but this is the idea).

Now, why would you do that? Well, for a lot of reason. Example: you have a digicam and you can take all your pictures in lossless until the card is full, by default. If you really have to take another shot on your full card, the digicam could just trim a little of your current photos data file and make some room for another shot.
There are lots of different reasons: use different resolution levels for different parts of the image (in radiography), use it to make very large images with virtually unlimited resolution,...

[Chris @ Nov 3rd 2007 8:25AM]

Besides TIFF 4GB limit and jpg/jp2 limit of 65535x65535 (6530MP application in 2004 http://www.gigapxl.org/project.htm), colorspaces where you can't see a white rabbit in snow [think different] might not be worth considering. That's where the later implementations of scRGB with decent HDR and transparency specs might prevail.
As far as audio, I'd rather opt for lossless / SACD / DVD Audio than gambling a 200-formation orchestra or Scriabine piano attacks ; full range electrostatic speakers or a pair of 2nd gen Stax Lambda Pro headphones won't forgive. Transients in Röyksopp "only this moment" do not fare too well either with compression.

[Graham @ Nov 3rd 2007 9:14AM]

So...

better quality for the same file size (pretty much equal to jpeg2000), a lossless option, *much* faster encoding (than jpeg2000 and png afaik), very fast decoding, support for multiple channels and colour spaces in the same image, transparency, differing compression per channel, high dynamic range (up to 32bit including floating point), no requirement for divide/multiply by the encoding/decoding hardware, constant work per-pixel decoding (I think), ability to decode rectangular sub-regions of the image without decoding the rest of the image, mipmaps.....

If I were a camera manufacturer I think I would like to support this format.

Now we just need HDR monitors.
:-)

[Eric @ Nov 3rd 2007 10:33AM]

"Now we just need HDR monitors."
Amen!

[TheWakeUpCall @ Nov 3rd 2007 10:42AM]

Can someone reply to tell me what the benefit of this is to microsoft? Since can't any company use this format now? Even its competitors.

[michael @ Nov 3rd 2007 12:29PM]

Does it have to benefit Microsoft?

Can't a company just do something nice these days, like make a format that's really good, and let people use it as they want?

It's funny how people seem apprehensive towards Microsoft. This is 2007. Times have changed if you hadn't noticed.

[James @ Nov 3rd 2007 3:15PM]

the irony of his comment combined with his username is hilarious