Comments on: Microsoft photo standard comes into focus

The company is optimistic that its HD Photo format will be renamed JPEG XR and standardized by the Joint Photographic Experts Group.
Image: HD Photo versus JPEG
Turf war between Microsoft's JPEG XR and Adobe's DNG?

[The_Decider]

It will take a lot more then a graphics format to save Vista

Besides if it is truly an open standard, how will it benefit the hapless Vista OS?

[chuchucuhi]

not trying to benefit Vista

I don't think they are trying to benefit Vista but they are trying to build a better image for themselves in the long run. Think of this more as a peace offering to reduce the MS bashers and haters in one group.

[Milly Staples]

Yeah, Microsoft is desperate to do anything to save Windows Vista

Gee, only 60 million sold in 6 months. Sales already exceed the entire installed Mac base.

Yep, Vista is dying on the vine.

Do yourself a favor and buy a clue.

[misterroboto]

All the cool kids are using Vista

Get with the times!

[Penguinisto]

Two words - Patent Trap.

Not sure (yet), but I'm willing to wager that there's likely more than a couple of processes in the standard that require licensing MSFT patents to do it.

/P

[grangerfx]

Microsoft gets one right

Microsoft has done a good job with HD Photo/JPEG XR. I have looked at the image quality and source code of HD Photo (which Microsoft makes available to everyone at no cost or license fees whatsoever). Quality wise, HD Photo is comparable to JPEG 2000. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses.

HD Photo really wins in the area of accessibility. JPEG 2000 has lots of restrictive licensing terms. The SDKs I have looked at are expensive to license and don't come with full source code. This is a pain for anyone trying to maintain a code base across multiple platforms and compilers. The HD Photo source code is self contained ANSII C code and should be simple to port to any platform. The unrestricted free license means that developers can experiment with it and integrate it with their products without financial risk.

The upshot of all of this is that we will have access to much higher resolution images with better compression and much better quality than JPEG in the software we use the most such as web browsers and desktop publishing applications.

[maf07]

Come on

Want a open source JPEG2000?
http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/

Want more codes links + comparison?
http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/pdf/jpeg2000_codec_comparison_en.pdf

Restrictive license?
excerpt: "
... agreement reached with over 20 large organizations holding many patents in this area to allow use of their intellectual property in connection with the standard without payment of license fees or royalties."
That is enough for me.

And yes, "old" JPEG is outdated.

[georgiarat]

Assuming....

That Microsoft doesn't bait and switch as they usually do. I trust
nothing they do is in the best interest of the consumer or IT.
They have one interest period, domination and control.

[Millerboy]

JPEG XR might be the future

First of all, with digital cameras today, people have an LCD screen to see shots after they take them, and if someone's face is in the dark, they just re-take the shot. With the gigabytes on SD memory cards today, people with a digital camera can afford to take more than 1 shot of every scene. I can store more than hundreds of photos, and practically an unlimited amount if you swap memory cards.

Second of all, like the CNET blog said, people don't like processing time. They want to be able to show, edit, and email their pictures instantly. If the quality and small footprint (size) of Microsoft's new JPEG XR is true, then it might be a winner for an evolved JPEG format. Also, given the fact that the JPEG name is popular and widely-known, it wouldn't hinder Microsoft's marketing efforts unless they are really stupid.

[inachu]

We are sorry but to view these images you need Vista

I can see microsoft changing the spec of the image data every 6 months now.

Windows users will see millions and they will cripple or diable the viewing of any picture.

Imagine you are only allowed to see pictures as black and white or as a jumbled mess. I can seea future micrsoft patch that accidently corrupts image data if it does not conform to their standards.

[kmomrik]

...

Why all of the hate and rage? Has Microsoft personally harmed or fouled any one of the people that post so vehemtly against them? I doubt it. Most of us in the technology realm have experienced a time when Microsoft's Evil Empire has actually - dare I say it - helped (ewww) us. Yes, most of the products that they push out are just that - PUSHED out. Too early, too hastily, too sloppily. But does that really mean that certain people have to be wholly against them at every turn? Absolutely not. Here is a novel idea, why not get informed and make a rational intelligent decision on what works for you. Once you've made that decision... don't worry about the rest. "Life is too short to be ticked off all the time"

[Shankland]

reporter responds: it won't be Microsoft's standard

Microsoft certainly has trust issues with a lot of folks--open-source fans especially--but the result of making this a standard through the JPEG organization and all the national standards organizations that contribute to the group is that it won't be just a Microsoft standard. It's an industry standard. It's out of Microsoft's control if not influence. If a Vista patch breaks support, it's Microsoft deviating from the standard, not taking it in a new direction.

[sokorie]

You have a problem with that ?

You have a problem with that ?
Every successful company in the world should always try to dominate its competition and control the market share . that's why microsoft is envied through out the world . with more than $3 billion dollars in profit every 3 months , there 's no real competion for microsoft in IT , not Apple or Google combined can dream of profits like these any time soon . not even in the 10 years . you can bet on that !

[nmcphers]

FYI

Apple and Google combined is worth more than Microsoft. Today. Not 10 years from now. Do the research.

[ethana2]

As long as it's an open standard,

then the oss implementations will be better than the proprietary ones. For now, though, I think I'll just stick to using .png's.

It's nice to see that Microsoft is taking a more orderly approach to creating "standards". Used to be they'd just kind of force everyone to use some proprietary thing and call it a standard. That was the kind of thing that really pissed me off. Seems they're getting smarter over there at Redmond. Bravo-- Encore.

[FutureGuy]

wtf??

*** is your problem, MS invested gobbles of money to create a new and much improved image format, decides to give it a neutral name (if it was Apple it you bet it would be iMyAs format, gave away the format for free for anyone (including Apple and Linux folks) to implement products on and MS is still bad guy, you fanboys are sick.

[lesfilip]

yes, wtf

"*** is your problem, MS invested gobbles of money..."

gobbles of money does not give them any additional weight.

"...to create a new and much improved image format,..."

It is not "much" improved over jpeg2000

"... decides to give it a neutral name (if it was Apple it you bet it
would be iMyAs format,..."

This is the third name they have given it in case you didn't know.
The last name was HD Photo, although they specifically stated
the HD did not stand for "high-definition". If not "high-
definition", then what did it stand for? What does XR stand for?
You might think "extended range", but where does it say that
anywhere?

"...gave away the format for free for anyone (including Apple and
Linux folks) to implement products on..."

They only promised not to charge royalties on the current
implementation. What about the future? No one knows.

"...and MS is still bad guy, you fanboys are sick."

Yes, Microsoft is still the bad guy. Have a nice day.

[onlyauser]

Could ALWAYS used a better image format...

...and I could careless where it comes from.

Thanks MS

[Penguinisto]

One that will prolly languish anyway.

Unlike the XML-based attempt at an "open" office document standard, This one will likely fail, and for many reasons.

First reason: The one and only proggie that has more reach than Adobe Photoshop is, umm, MS Paint. Not exactly something that's going to hammer Photoshop anytime soon.

MSFT tried in 1999 to create a Photoshop-like clone, but it never left the MSDN/TechNet beta stage (UI-wise, it was pure crap for the most part, even when compared to GIMP, which is really saying something).

The second reason is that most digital cameras save in one of two common formats: RAW (proprietary) and *.jpg. There are literally hundreds of millions, if not billions, of digital cameras out there.

Third up: The Web. No longer is IE a defacto standard... images have to render in the likes of Firefox, Opera, and Safari... and IE's numbers are slipping badly. So, if you want your pix to show up for your web visitors, you'd best use something that everyone can use. IE-only will promptly alienate ~25% of your visitors, and no marketing department is stupid enough to do that. Even MSFT learned the hard way back in 1999-2000 when they tried to literally lock microsoft.com to IE-only... they backed down in less than a week.

Finally, we have the Graphics industry itself. We're talking about folks that are quite happy with .tif, .psd, .png, and a whole host of lossless compressible formats. Most of their inventory resides there. You think they're going to suddenly shift over to MSFT's new standard in light of all the other reasons listed above? Prolly not.

Don't get me wrong - any improvement in image standards is cool (caveat: one that can be vendor-locked is not*), but the industry simply isn't going to bother.

/P

* before anyone screams about Photoshop /.psd , I'll have you know that I can open .psd files all day long in The GIMP.

[Vegaman_Dan]

It's an open standard, not proprietary.

The story clearly states that this would not be a proprietary format, but instead an open one for all to use if they wish.

Your points are interesting, if completely irrelevant.

[sum1st]

Before talking about improvements...

What HD Photo really improves according to MSFT ?
We've just seen one PSNR measurement, which in terms of the "perceived" image quality says NOTHING.
The real supposed improvement in HD Photo is 48bit and High Dynamic Range support, which, in my own tests with their Photoshop plugin proved real poor.
The only other comparison I found around is this one: www.trellis-mgmt.com ...which also shows pretty bad quality of HD Photo when dealing with High Dynamic Range.
In the end, all these "claimed benefits", even versus common jpeg, are yet to be seen and proofs are yet to be evaluated by the people and corporations adopting image compression in general.
So, dear MSFT...whatever...show the facts not the Decibels.