Microsoft releases final version of HD Photo plug-in for Photoshop

Update: I clarified the caption of the illustration to better indicate what editing had gone on to produce the side-by-side images.

Microsoft has taken the beta tag off a plug-in to let Photoshop read and write files in the HD Photo format, which Microsoft is standardizing as JPEG XR.

The free plug-in is available for download for Windows and Mac OS X systems. The plug-ins work on Windows XP and Vista, Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5, and Photoshop CS2 or CS3, Bill Crow, who's overseen the HD Photo and JPEG XR effort, wrote on his blog Thursday.

These two images both are edited versions of overexposed originals. After editing, the overexposed JPEG version on the left looks murky. The right picture, originally encoded and then edited as an HD Photo, has more dynamic range, so detail in the highlights can be recovered better. It's shown here converted back into regular JPEG after the editing process.

(Credit: Microsoft/Bill Crow)

Microsoft hopes HD Photo eventually will replace the ubiquitous JPEG standard overseen by the Joint Photographic Experts Group. Among the HD Photo advantages that Microsoft touts: it offers more efficient compression, richer color and a much wider dynamic range; it can optionally store images without data loss from compression; it's free of royalty and licensing constraints; and it can run in camera hardware. Support for the file format, initially called Windows Media Photo, is built into Windows Vista.

HD Photo also can be used to show images online at different resolutions, transmitting only the portion of the image that's shown on the screen. That's useful for zooming in to a high-resolution photo without having to download a vast image, a technology Microsoft uses in its HD View software for viewing detailed images online. One organization using HD View is Xrez.

However, Microsoft faces significant challenges in encouraging adoption of the technology. Building it into Vista is a big step, and an endorsement from Photoshop publisher Adobe Systems helps, but JPEG is deeply entrenched. Standardization through JPEG could encourage industry players to adopt the standard--in particular those who are leery of Microsoft's power.

But there are plenty of standards that never catch on. What could really tip the balance in favor of HD Photo/JPEG XR is if it gets built into cameras directly so photographers can start using it from the outset.

The final version of the plug-in, developed in part by Pegasus Imaging Systems, looks mostly like recent betas, Crow said.

"All the changes we've made since the last beta are under the covers, fixing a couple minor bugs, addressing several theoretical security vulnerabilities and generally bringing the code up to current Microsoft standards for released software," he said. "Don't forget that the beta versions will expire on December 31st, so you should definitely download and install these new released versions."

[Renegade Knight]

It Does Sound Promising

Lossless compression. Better Color Range. If you can annotate it, plug GPS Coordinates into it, and perhaps add a sound byte, it would have all the bases covered to be a working standard.

For a standard to catch on, it has to solve problems.

[`WarpKat]

It definately opens new doors...

...for vulnerability exploitation and annoyance if you allow all of that crap into it.

[frankwick]

This is a good thing

High qualtity photos at jpeg sizes... Good technology, but not useful yet. For it to become useful, the cameras need to support it and the labs need to be able to read it. Then you will have the complete supply chain from image capture to processing to printing.

[Shankland]

Useful even without all links in the chain

Even in limited areas, I suspect JPEG XR is useful, though certainly not nearly to the extent as if it's ubiquitous. For example, I shoot raw images on my camera right now because I want to keep the data that JPEG throws away. But when I send images to friends, I convert to JPEG, of course. For many people, HD Photo/JPEG XR could be a useful alternative that has some of the higher quality of raw without the hassle of having to process every picture out of the camera. Another example: HD Photo could be useful on a computer for printing, since Windows Vista supports it.

But yes, it would be vastly more useful once one can assume its support is universal.

[t8]

Beware

Beware of the small print and practices of Microsoft.

The devil is always in the details.

Ask yourself why they are doing this?
It is never a good answer when it comes to Redmond.

[Hernys]

Why?

Because creating a standard format that helps the usefullness of PCs is in their benefit. Because by creating the format they can make the design decisions that they consider important for the PC market. Because by creating the format they can be the first ones to implement it, and have a V3 implementation by the time others have a V1.
Is any of that bad?

[Marty Feldman]

Do you really trust this man?

steve Ballmer ....
http://****************.blogspot.com

[Microsoft_Facts]

Dangerous format

Given Microsoft's 100% track record in these area's;

It is bloated, any application or device supporting this format will run at 1/4 speed with twice the horsepower as compared to any non-MS format.

This file format will spread viruses and worms.

And of course, nothing comes from Microsoft that isn't overall more harmful to society than good.

[M.Kogaku]

Forced "upgrade" time?

Gee, I guess there must be too many people still using Win2K -- for my money, the best OS they've produced to date (and I paid enough of my money to buy it from them!)

It's stable, it's fast, it is less of a resource hog, it doesn't threaten to wipe me out if I install some new memory or a new video card -- and, golly, it won't support this new "standard".

If they can get enough websites to use it, and enough digital cameras to use it, then people will suddenly find their OS unusable for anything requiring graphics.

How droll.

[steve4lee]

comparison picture

The "comparison" picture of the two standards is itself a single
JPEG. So the look on the right is possible in JPEG, because, well,
there it is.

There is not a single color space for all JPEGs, but rather they
can embed different color space settings, as anybody knows
who's ever saved a JPEG from Photoshop and read all the
parameters you can set from the Save windows.

Certainly, sRGB, the usual color space for JPEGs on the web, has
a smaller gamut than a lot of others. If that's the problem, then
just have browsers to adopt a different default standard. As I
recall, Microsoft was one of the champions of using sRGB as the
browser default. But a wide gamut per se is not a cure-all. It
depends upon how the picture is displayed. If the gamut is a lot
bigger than the medium can handle, then you are just wasting a
lot of your color information where it can't be seen and losing
information where it could be.

Anyhow, my point is that the comparison picture is a kind of
fraud. If JPEG can't produce the quality on the right, how did
they get it into a JPEG to show on the web?

[Hernys]

Good point but...

THe real point is that given JPEGs limitations heavy editing and composing of images will teng to yield pictures like the one on the left, even if with heavy work you can get them to look right.
My main concern is with displays. As monitors have a dynamic range that's closer to JPEGs capabilities than to scRGB range, most users won't see a big difference for normal material (like their own pictures).

[Shankland]

both are JPEGs, but

They were edited back from an originally overexposed image. The original JPEG lacked the data to bring back the overexposed highlights, but the HD Photo had more latitude. The resulting image is more palatable. I'll clarify the caption better--thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Mproject]

Microsoft is doomed

This is the end of Microsoft.

[Hernys]

I think

I've heard this before. In the early nineties. And every year since.
Don't you have anything better to do?