Comments on: Vista to give HD Photo format more exposure

Operating system's launch next week will put Microsoft's own photo format into consumers' hands. Could it be a nail in JPEG's coffin?

[lesfilip]

What does HD stand for?

If it does not actually stand for high definition, then what is it? To
the vast majority of consumers who see "HD" it is going to mean
hi-def, yet Microsoft says that is not what it stands for. Sounds like
a misleading marketing tactic, and is not a good way to get others
on board.

Have a nice day!

[Ilgaz]

There is already a standard

It is named JPEG 2000.

MS must be dreaming just like they thought WMA thing may
crash mp3 and aac.

People use industry open standards, even Joe Sixpacks learned it.

[adlyb1]

Not fully supported...

...because the group that developed JPEG 2000 did not completely lock down intellectual property issues involving the compression method used in this format, so many software providers have avoided providing support for it, fearing a repeat of the Unisys patent debacle with GIF.

In fact, JPEG-2000 is excluded from Debian for this very reason which keeps it out of several open source projects like any Gecko based browsers.

Not saying, it isn't a good format because it is, but it comes with some baggage that will limit it's adoption.

[Ilgaz]

Apple has jpeg 2000 support out of the box

Jpeg 2000, which is industry standard for wavelet compression is
supported on OS X via built in Quicktime framework.

I think Windows customers should have asked why it wasn't ever
supported. I guess we saw the reason right now.

[DrtyDogg]

and. . .

it's been out for 7 years and nobody is using it.

[Mark Greene]

This just in... MS leverages monopoly to impose "standard"

what else is new?

[airwalkery2k]

Encourage its own standard

I think a better terminology would be to encourage its own standard. If they made Jpeg, PNG, and other formats unusable on Vista, then you could say they were imposing it. For now, it is something they are building in.

Now, is it an unfair advantage compared to some little start-up company that may have come up with something better? Yes. Of course.

[adlyb1]

Again...

...because the group that developed JPEG 2000 did not completely lock down intellectual property issues involving the compression method used in this format, so many software providers have avoided providing support for it, fearing a repeat of the Unisys patent debacle with GIF.

Apple is willing to assume the liability of somone like Unisys coming out of nowhere and requiring licensing on the format, and I applaud them for doing it, but most software vendors have balked after being burned over GIF.

In any case, MS isn't just trying to replace, but improve at the same time. The HD Photo format provides better quality than JPEG-2000 and doesn't come with IP baggage. Now, whether it is adopted is entirely up to the market.

[john55440]

Stick with inferior JPEG?

How DARE Microsoft produce a superior photo format! -lol

Multi-format digicams would keep everyone happy.

[t8]

Don't trust the MS Monopoly Machine

I would use it if it wasn't a Microsoft technology.
The reason is because I do not trust them and tend to keep away from them and go with open standards instead.

Microsoft is so closed that there is no benefit to the consumer, and we all know how abusive Microsoft is with their monopoly.

Dare we give them another one?

[quikboy2]

Microsoft Monopoly?

How about the Apple Monopoly being worse? You can only use OS X on a mac, and Macs only. Ipod games can only be made from Apple. Ipods can only use iTunes. Just some examples of how they are way more closed than Microsoft. In fact, Apple is the least open of all 3 operating systems. You really have little to work with and offers very little. At least with Microsoft, they HAVE to use many standards. Apple can get away with it, because they aren't so big as a company, so nobody can really punish them. So if you ask me, Microsoft isn't really a monopoly. Your best example would be Apple.

[inachu]

I would be careful adoptng MS standards

the the image formats have been a bit stale.

[507073]

High Dynamic range formats

There are several High Dynamic Range formats to choose from.
for a technical comparison see http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html

The MS HD format (called scRGB there) does not come out on top.

JPEG 2000 is not a HDR format, so its not a replacement for HD Photo.

[Fictia]

Am I the only one seeing the trojan horse here?

Fine, version 1.0 of HD Photo is free forever for everyone and their dog. But what about version 1.5? You know..once your camera and all relevant software supports v1.0? After all, it will trim 20% more space, or possibly add video or somesuch... What if they try to charge for THAT VERSION? So you will save a file in Windows 2012 in "HD Photo" format and it'll save in version 1.2. Then you give the CD to your friend to print or use on their Mac. Oooops, no longer works.. But it worked for Vista?? Yap. But MS wanted the ROI on HD Photo. Whatcha think, free lunch, MY BOY?

[Fil0403]

Am I the only one unbiased here?

Ultimately nobody can force you to upgrade to version 1.5. If you want better features then you pay the price. If they try to charge for that version you stick to fee-forever-version 1.0. What makes you say I will save a file in Windows 2012 in "HD Photo" format and it'll save in version 1.2, when even Microsoft Office 2007 today lets you save in the old Microsoft Office file format? And if I give the CD to my friend to print or use on their Mac and it no longer works, that's his/her problem having a Mac, not "HD Photo" for not working on a competitor OS, who told him to buy a machine that typically doesn't run half of the software you can run on any Windows machine in the first place? That's the "great" thing about Mac's, if he/she wasn't aware of it when he/she bought it or if he/she ignored it because it was cool to have Mac, that's his/her problem, I'm fine opening my pictures on my compatible Windows machine. Again, you base your opinion/prediciton on absolutely nothing, given even Microsoft Office runs on Macs and you can open Windows Media Video files on a Mac, and until recently even Internet Explorer had a Mac version supported by Microsoft. Anyway, how dares Microsoft not make their software compatible with a competitor OS that not even 5% of people use? Unheard of. That's the great thing about Windows, didn't you get it yet, Einstein? Compatibility.
Whatcha think, free lunch, my boy?

[Llib Setag]

Industry Standards

should be decided upon by THE PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY INDUSTRY not a greedy robber baron software monopoly.

JPEG = Joint Photography Exchange Group a standard developed & agreed about by the photography industry, camera industry & adopted by the computer software industry.

FACT: Microsith does NOT comply to industry standards because there cannot be a MONOPOLY on that & they would have to "share" with others.
Redmond One dictates to the world, not the other way around, as history has shown. Only when caught, forced by the legal systems & sanctions regulated upon Microsith do they attempt to "comply & share".
JPG / PNG / DNG / RAW are standards that Photoshop / Aperture / Lightroom software can all use & save as other standards to share with others.

Buzz Off Microsith.

[brianpb]

"Sales pitch" misrepresents JPEG

This article has a number of technical errors in the "HD Photo sales pitch"
section. In particular most of the statements about the conventional JPEG
compression standard are incorrect. This gives a misleading impression about
the JPEG standard. If HD Photo is truly better, then it should not need
misrepresentation of its competition in order to distinguish itself.

Statement: "For each pixel, HD Photo stores at least 16 bits of data for each
color, compared with 8 bits with JPEG."

Rebuttal: The baseline JPEG algorithm supports up to 12 bits per sample, most
software just doesn't enable it. The commonly used libjpeg library from the
Independent JPEG Group has to be specially compiled to support 12 bits but the
code is there. The Java Advanced Imaging Image I/O Tools project from Sun
Microsystems, Inc. supports 12-bits per sample JPEG compression.

Statement: "HD Photo builds in smaller 'thumbnail' images for quick viewing of
files at small sizes. In contrast, a computer operating system must generate
JPEG thumbnails."

Rebuttal: Most JPEG images from digital cameras conform to the EXIF standard
for compressed images and do in fact contain a pre-computed thumbnail in their
EXIF marker segment. All the computer OS has to do is to load this thumbnail.

Statement: "The encoding algorithm, set to its highest standard, is 'lossless,'
meaning that it preserves all the image data with no loss of quality. JPEG is
'lossy.' And although JPEG 2000 has a lossless feature, it requires a separate
algorithm and therefore, in the case of camera chips, more circuitry.

Rebuttal: JPEG is not inherently lossy. For example if the quantization step
size is set to 1, i.e., the quantization tables contain only 1s, it is lossless.
Also, saying that JPEG2000 requires a separate algorithm is meaningless. Doesn't
HD Photo use a separate algorithm as well? The letters "JPEG" are an acronym for
"Joint Photographic Experts Group" which develops color image compression
standards, not for a particular algorithm.

Statement: "HD Photo uses Microsoft's scRGB color space, which spans a much
wider gamut of possible colors than the universally supported but widely
derided sRGB scheme. 'HD Photo adds support for a higher range of colors,
which is becoming more important,' Connor said. And although cameras and
computers typically describe colors in RGB terms--varying amounts of red,
green and blue--HD Photo also can use CMYK that uses cyan, magenta, yellow
and black. That's useful for sending images to printers, which often use CMYK
inks.

Rebuttal: This is irrelevant given that JPEG is color blind. There is no
reason that an image compressed as JPEG couldn't represent something in an
scRGB color space. The problem would be how this would be flagged. This
flagging could be done for example via an APPn marker segment. In any case,
a JPEG can contain an ICC profile representing a larger range of colors. Also,
there are already more or less standard ways to represent CMYK in JPEG.

Statement: "The algorithm can decode only a selected portion of the HD Photo
image that needs to be displayed, rather than the entire image, which reduces
memory requirements and speeds up performance. It can also be encoded chunk
by chunk without having to store the entire image in memory."

Rebuttal: If a JPEG stream contains restart (RSTn) markers it can be decoded
chunk-by-chunk as well, most software just doesn't implement this. Likewise,
the encoding could be done by chunks. In JPEG termas the chunks are referred
to as "minimum coded units" (MCUs).

Statement: "HD Photos can be easily rotated in 90-degree increments. JPEG
images must be decoded and re-encoded, degrading quality slightly with
each change."

Rebuttal: That is absolutely wrong. Simple transposition (90X degree rotations,
flips) can be done in the transform domain so this is feasible in JPEG without
decoding-encoding. See for example the manual page on the "jpegtran" program
from the Independent JPEG Groups "libjpeg" package:

http://linux.about.com/library/cmd/blcmdl1_jpegtran.htm

Statement: "HD Photo images can be gargantuan--262 million pixels on an edge,
or 68.6 terapixels total, as long as the compressed image doesn't exceed 32GB
in size."

Rebuttal: Perhaps, but why is that important for most users? In general the
main reason to have an image resolution larger than the display resolution
is to print the image at a higher quality. But JPEG can handle dimensions up
to 65535 pixels on a side which would allow printing a photograph 20" x 20"
at more than 3000 dpi, for example.

[jdphotos]

Please avoid the temptation towards prejudice

I think this subject is worth some respectful commentary, and I suggest that we shouldn't respond out of paranoia. I am excited about the prospect of an improved image format. I agree with Striker77s and wonder if anyone serious about photography would throw away a gift because they are "bashers". Most of us use and enjoy products from Microsoft even though we may be envious of their success, and frustrated with what seems like greedy policies in regards to overpricing (and their justifiable attempts to prevent theft). I also don't like seeing competition stifled, and I think it's possible that MS has been guilty at times. However, this new image format may be one of the best attempts from MS to really give back to the community something of substance, with no/few strings attached. They deserve the credit and publicity which they will get (this is probably their motivation) if this format becomes adopted. I don't think this new image format would hurt anyone, and its wide acceptance would benefit everyone who creates, saves, and manipulates images. Sorry my two cents is so lengthy.

[gerry-g]

I see no mention that JPEG supports 12 bits per color, however rarely used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

"The 12-bit JPEG format has been part of the JPEG specification for some time, but again, this format is not as widely supported."