Microsoft HD Photo Plug-in for Adobe Photoshop


Recommended Posts

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;DisplayLang=en

This is the Windows BETA release of the HD Photo file format plug-in forAdobe? Photoshop? software. It supports a wide range of pixel formats (including high dynamic range, wide gamut formats) and numerous advanced HD Photo features.

This BETA plug-in is designed for use with the CS2 or CS3 versions of Adobe? Photoshop? software running under Microsoft Windows XP or Microsoft Windows Vista. Any other use is not supported. Because this is a BETA release, we recommend you use careful judgment before using this version of the plug-in for any production work. This BETA version will expire after May 31st, 2007.

NOTE: HD Photo is also known as Windows Media Photo.

"HD Photo Plug-in for Adobe? Photoshop? Software"

Care to explain better what you mean? Because I don't see "windows" anywhere in that name.

windows media photo is the format name, not the plug-in name.

So how do you use this plugin?

You import a JPEG photo file, use this plug-in to convert it to a Higher quality HD format?? (doesn't make sense)

No no, this plug-in allows photoshop to have the ability to read, open, edit, and save this new format. If you're starting with a .jpeg photo you've already lost the battle.

As a follow-up to the front-page article comparing Png, Jpg and HD Photo (https://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=38679), I decided to do the same comparison with Png, Jpg and Jpg2000.

Unlike with HD Photo, you need neither Vista nor Photoshop for Jpeg2000 - I used the freeware program FastStone Image Viewer 3.0 :)

Settings were (unless otherwise noted)

Png: compression 9 (24bit)

Jpg: Quality 80, Flota, Rgb, optimized Huffman, not progressive

Jp2 (Jpeg2000): Rate 80, Rgb

Here are the individual pics from the comparison (Png, Jpg and Jp2) in one zip file:

http://rapidshare.com/files/20357860/Neowi...arison.zip.html

1. Neowin logo

I've included some text here so we can see how well it fares there as well.

Comparison Png - Jpg - Jp2

neowin-logo-comparison.png

File sizes Png - Jpg - Jp2: 36.5kB - 26.8kB - 30.5kB

2. Colour table

Using maximum quality settings: Jpeg 100% Quality, Jpeg2000 Rate 1000 (lossless)

File sizes Png - Jpg - Jp2: 5.19kB - 178kB - 117kB

3. MS Logo

I downloaded a lossless Tiff logo from the MS Presspass site for comparison purposes.

The original Tiff is 1746x345 and 200kB in size. I resized it to 300x64 for better side-to-side comparison.

The Png file is 17.2kB. Now I want to reduce the file size to roughly a third. With Jpeg, I get a 6,1kB file with 25% quality, and it looks very mushy. With Jpeg2000, even with Rate 100 and great quality, the file size is only 5.6kB.

915 x 61 - Click to view full image

windowsxp2-comparison.png.xs.jpg

4. Bill Gates photo

I got a high res photo of Bill Gates from the Presspass site (2704x4064, 4.5MB Jpg) and resized it to 400x600. As Jpeg with 100% quality, it's 317kB.

To cut down on file size, I reduced the quality to 25%, which gave a 52.1kB Jpg. With Jpeg2000, I can go up to Rate 75, which gives a 51.9kB file, and it doesn't look any different from the Jpeg 100% quality file.

Comparison of Jpeg 100% - Jpeg 25% - Jpeg2000 R75 (the latter two have the same file size!)

1202 x 599 - Click to view full image

billg5web-comparison.png.xs.jpg

5. Microsoft 1978 photo

Finally, I used the Microsoft 1978 image to have a group photo comparison. I had to resize the original photo to 200x158 to get rid of the artifacts.

I again saved this as Jpeg with 25% quality, resulting in a 9.3kB file. With Jpeg2000, I can set it to Rate 100, resulting in a 9.2kB file.

Comparison original resized pic - Jpeg 25% - Jpeg2000 R100

600 x 156 - Click to view full image

Microsoft1978-comparison.png.xs.jpg

Concluding I can say that Jpeg2000 is significantly better than ordinary Jpeg, and it also fares better than the MS HD photo format.

What's more, you need neither Vista nor Adobe Photoshop for Jpeg2000, a freeware program like FastStone Image Viewer 3.0 is already enough. It can even batch-convert your files into Jpeg2000 if you want.

Here are the individual pics from the comparison (Png, Jpg and Jp2) in one zip file:

http://rapidshare.com/files/20357860/Neowi...arison.zip.html

Edited by Aero Ultimate
So how do you use this plugin?

You import a JPEG photo file, use this plug-in to convert it to a Higher quality HD format?? (doesn't make sense)

If I understand correctly, you would take a RAW image file (like from a digital camera) and open it in PS to save to the HD format. You get better quality with a smaller file. I haven't really got into details about the format but I assume that's what it is for.

I've now done a follow-up comparison with Jpg and Jp2, using the uncompressed Tiff files from the new front page article as a basis:

https://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=38688

You can see my results here:

https://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&a...&cid=536332

Aero Ultimate, your maturity level is really something for other members to look up to. :rolleyes:

You re-compressed JPG (JPG is a lossy format) images that you downloaded from the web. Your evaluation of file formats has failed. You're straying even further from the original photos by converting to PNG in addition to other file formats and using the PNG as a control.

It seems that you wouldn't know how to use the scientific process if it bit you in the ***.

Nice try, albeit useless and off-topic.

Whatever the tests may show, we are using a beta plug-in, Who made it btw? Is this one from Adobe or from MS?

I think HD Photo can be good, just need a final version to get a newer test going. And while jpeg2k is also close to the same, it's not being used at all, most if not all digital cameras do RAW/JPEG I don't know of any that do JPEG2k. It's a messy and expensive license.

I think MS could have a winner here if they do it right. Oh, and about having PNG in the tests, while PNG Is good for web gfx like logos and stuff, PNG is not made for Photos, so right now it's best to just stick to JPEG/HDP/JPEG2k and start with a large RAW or TIFF image as your control. This was done in the 2nd artical on the front page and from the looks of it, HDP did do a better job then JPEG, smaller file sizes with the same or better quality. And this with a beta plug-in. HPD might not beet the pants off of JPEG2k right now, but it's cleaner and cheaper (free) license wins hands down.

Meh. I know it doesn't compress anything and that's the purpose of HD Photo, but I still prefer PNG24 over everything else. Why use compression with computers nowadays... and all those fast connections and everything. If they tried this 4 years ago, maybe, but now this picture compression era is kinda dead IMO.

If I understand correctly, you would take a RAW image file (like from a digital camera) and open it in PS to save to the HD format. You get better quality with a smaller file. I haven't really got into details about the format but I assume that's what it is for.
How can you get a better quality than the raw file? The raw file is most of the time an uncompressed file that contain an "image" of your sensor with all the settings without any quality picture loss.

I don't get the idea of how you can get a better picture when compressing from the original.

Meh. I know it doesn't compress anything and that's the purpose of HD Photo, but I still prefer PNG24 over everything else. Why use compression with computers nowadays... and all those fast connections and everything. If they tried this 4 years ago, maybe, but now this picture compression era is kinda dead IMO.

I think you got a point there. HDs are getting cheaper all the time, Dvds as well and HD-Dvd with much higher capacity is just around the corner. Thus, a lossless format like Png is often enough already. If you need more compression while still keeping good quality, you can use Jp2. However, that it is not used widely today only shows that there's obviously no need for it.

@GP007, concerning the "free" argument:

All Jp2 pics in my comparison were created with free software that runs on anything starting with Windows 98. For those who don't even have that and run Linux only, they can use Gimp which supports Jp2 as well (afaik).

For creating Wdp pics (whose performance have been anything but convincing), you must have Adobe Photoshop, a very high-priced app!

Even for just viewing Wdp pics, you must have Vista with Photo Explorer, no chance on previous Windows, much less Linux.

...

For creating Wdp pics (whose performance have been anything but convincing), you must have Adobe Photoshop, a very high-priced app!

Even for just viewing Wdp pics, you must have Vista with Photo Explorer, no chance on previous Windows, much less Linux.

Yeah, that part stinks. As a Linux user with GIMP, it would be nice to try out this new image format (if I can get same quality images at half the filesize of current jpeg). I'm not about to try to keep archives of family pictures on DVDs with .png or other large (but loseless!) formats.

I just wish Microsoft would be less restrictive with this format that they want to make a 'standard'.

I don't know how restrictive the license actually is, but what I mean about jpeg2k is that it's not free from what I remember, it's license costs some thing, correct me if I'm wrong though. So even if it's used in Gimp, somehow the license got paid.

And I can't see why you can't make a HDP plug-in for Gimp also, since I'm sure I read MS isn't charging anything for using it.

I don't know how restrictive the license actually is, but what I mean about jpeg2k is that it's not free from what I remember, it's license costs some thing, correct me if I'm wrong though. So even if it's used in Gimp, somehow the license got paid.

And I can't see why you can't make a HDP plug-in for Gimp also, since I'm sure I read MS isn't charging anything for using it.

It isn't a matter of cost, it is a matter of Microsoft (currently, anyhow) prohibiting use in any application that requires source code to be made available (I think GPL is the only big license to have this requirement).

JPEG2000 allows use of the associated patents without royalties - the only concern is a rogue patent-holder of one of the included technologies suddenly changing their mind.

The up and coming JPEG 2000 standard has been prepared along these lines, and agreement reached with over 20 large organisations 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.

And, sadly, Microsoft is no different in suddenly deciding to enforce and charge for patents they hold, such as FAT32.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!