Comments on: Photoshop gets HD Photo support

Microsoft plug-in lets Photoshop read and write HD Photo images, and some camera hardware companies are also building in support.

[Karl Viklund]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo

Noooo noooooo :(
Gaah. Another useless format from Microsoft. This wont go anywhere and the only one that will end up using this is Microsoft. I wonder what they payed Adobe to include this crap.

[gggg sssss]

only one?

since 90 percent or so of teh world's computesr run MS systems, then that is a pretty large headcount for what you call no one. Lets start a pool on when Apple buys a licence.

Of course, the anti MS and non MS community coudl have come upo with a better standard themselves. And sold it to the world. JPEG is 20 years old. They have had plenty of time

[toosday]

OK, that's cool

WHile I'd love to hate on Microsoft, I really can't find a reason why
HD Photo is evil yet.

And it actually looks pretty good (and has a good file size).

[ewelch]

First they lie about HD....

Now they're calling it RAW? I hope the FTC slaps them down for
deceptive business practices. This software is not losless. It's
losssy, which means it's not RAW. Not only that, it has none of
the benefits of what real RAW files offer. Like being able to fix
white balance errors, recovery of highlights, as well as many
other things.

There is no way this will become a standard as long as anyone is
doing any licensing related to it. Even then, to pretend is has
anything to do with High Definition, or using the term RAW only
shows they are intentionally using deceptive language to get
people to accept this Trojan horse into photographers' lives.

Just say no to (pseudo)HD Photo. Stop the buzzword bingo
Microsoft!

[J. Blow]

No D.A.

Can you read? Images that are taken directly from a camera's image sensor are in the RAW format.

[frankwick]

It's a good compromise

RAW is the best quality but produces HUGE files and is very slow to process. 99% of the people who own digital cameras do not need this level of resolution.

JPG on the other hand is very fast, but can cause less than desirable results especially at higher compression rates.

HDPhoto is a good compromise between RAW and JPG. It will offer much higher resolution than JPG (not as fullas RAW though) and will produce file sizes only slightly larger than JPG.

Not that Adobe and camera makers are jumping on board I see HDphoto as a very good thing. Time for the the MS haters to step back and look at the bigger picture here and benefit.

BTW, an independent group tried to do something similar a few years back. (The need has existed for sometime). Their result was JPG2000. A good format (not great), but it did not have the market influence that MS does. It never stood a chance of surviving.

[Karl Viklund]

PNG

PNG for the win. We don't need anything new. HD Photo will only be one of all formats out there. I don't think it will catch on. Microsoft always, always... develops their own standards instead of taking what already out there and free to use... I think this is stupid. We don't need it, really.

[Jess McLean]

Who are "We"?

You mean you and your dog?

[Martin Ozolin]

pkzip the bmp and TIFF files

Just don't get me started about version 8 of winzip with tsadbot.

[Martin Ozolin]

pkzip the bmp and TIFF files

With archiving there is 100% data reproducibility. I have used a REGISTERED version of pkzip since 1993. It was annoying to see windows ME launch into previewing zip files without my permission. Some new digital cameras have dropped TIFF support. Just look who are producing DSC and P prefixes in file naming formats. See who will quit embracing short filenames with a simple OS first.