main

Microsoft Readies Proprietary Image Format

Inertia   on 26 May 2006 - 14:03 · 38 comments & 36933 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Microsoft have announced their new image format which is a competitor to standards like JPEG and PNG.
Windows Media Photo is a new file format for continuous-tone still images that surpasses the limitations of existing image formats.

Windows Media Photo supports a wide range of features including:
• Multiple color formats for display or print
• Fixed or floating point high dynamic range image encoding
• Lossless or high quality lossy compression
• Extremely efficient decoding for multiple resolutions and sub-regions
• Minimal overhead for format conversion or transformations during decode

Windows Media Photo delivers a lightweight, high performance algorithm with a small memory footprint that enables practical, in-device encoding and decoding.

News source: Microsoft
Windows Media Photo License

XPS implementations of Windows Media Photo require the Windows Media Photo Device Porting Kit. Contact Microsoft at wmla@microsoft.com with XPS WMPhoto License in the Subject field to obtain the Windows Media Photo Device Porting Kit.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 38 additional comments
(2 replies) #1 ZeroHertz on 26 May 2006 - 14:21
Does it support transparency?
#1.1 markjensen on 26 May 2006 - 17:10
Yes it does. It seems to be pretty well thought-out, from my quick review of the document they supply. A lot of features supported.
#1.2 stevember on 27 May 2006 - 16:20
Lets hope IE supports it before IE9 is out...
#2 Mathiasdm on 26 May 2006 - 14:41
Might be a stupid question, but will it work cross-platform?
#3 azz0r_wugg on 26 May 2006 - 14:43
They want it to replace jpeg so I doubt it
#4 Jaxkesa on 26 May 2006 - 14:51
Well this is just what we need...another image standard. I don't see how it can replace JPEG if it dopesn't work cross-platform.
#5 pdileepa on 26 May 2006 - 14:53
If the standardize it like they did for WMA/WMV (VC3??), it will be cross-platform.
(2 replies) #6 mr_da3m0n on 26 May 2006 - 14:56
DO NOT WANT.

1) It has "Windows" in the name
2) Microsoft probably will find a way to make it proprietary or otherwise crappy on other platforms
3) I smell patents and dubious licensing.

What's wrong with PNG?
#6.1 markjensen on 26 May 2006 - 15:00
PNG is lossless, so yields an outrageously high filesize with typical photos. PNG is an excellent replacement for GIF, as PNG has per-pixel alpha, and much greater color depth.

But I agree that this is not necessary, unless it intends to replace JPEG, in which case it must be open for all to freely use.
#6.2 mr_da3m0n on 26 May 2006 - 15:15
Yeah, I don't know why I said that. I think it's because it is the only true open and free-as-in-speech format I could think of.

That's just like that XML based printing junk they're trying to push. What's wrong with the globally understood and accepted postscript and PDF formats?

Everytime they do that, I feel pain for the devs on alternate platform that must reverse engineer the format to get it to work. And once that done, people claim it's "cross platform because it works on such and such platform!".

Bleh.
(3 replies) #7 brianshapiro on 26 May 2006 - 15:08
The article as posted here is missing the interesting information.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,...,1967918,00.asp

"Windows Media Photo will allow users to correct, render and print photos in half the size a comparable JPEG requires, Crow said. As a result, images will retain more shadow and highlight detail, even when sent via e-mail, instant-messaging and other communications channels; and will require significantly less space for storage, he told WinHEC attendees."

"Windows Media Photo "features 24:1 compression while retaining far more detail than JPEG or JPEG 2000 formats," blogged Weinberg. "Microsoft is shooting to have higher quality than typical digital cameras while at a 12:1 level (most cameras use 6:1, so that's a very good thing).""

"In order to make use of XPS, Microsoft's XML Paper Specification display/printing format that Microsoft is pushing as an alternative to PostScript and PDF, developers need to use the Windows Media Photo Device Porting Kit, according to Microsoft. "

BTW, as I understand it, Microsoft needs to pay a license to use JPEG, so I don't see that this can be seen as more proprietary. Just some people will not like it because its Microsoft

Last edited by brianshapiro on 26 May 2006 - 17:50
#7.1 mr_da3m0n on 26 May 2006 - 15:22
Quote -

Just some people will not like it because its Microsoft.


Partly true. I will most likely not like it because Microsoft has a blatant history of pushing proprietary formats that can't really be easily ported to other platforms.
#7.2 markjensen on 26 May 2006 - 15:27
Currently, Microsoft only licenses this for use in their XPS - nowhere else Microsoft.com
"Microsoft is only offering a license for Windows Media Photo as a component of XPS. Information on licensing Windows Media Photo for other applications will be provided in the future."

JPEG is not subject to these restrictions JPEG.org or DigitalPreservation.gov

So, yeah... Currently, WMP is much more restrictive. I will hold this position until their license changes.
#7.3 gaekwad2 on 28 May 2006 - 00:21
Quote - brianshapiro said @ #7
The article as posted here is missing the interesting information.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,...,1967918,00.asp

"Windows Media Photo will allow users to correct, render and print photos in half the size a comparable JPEG requires, Crow said. As a result, images will retain more shadow and highlight detail, even when sent via e-mail, instant-messaging and other communications channels; and will require significantly less space for storage, he told WinHEC attendees."

"Windows Media Photo "features 24:1 compression while retaining far more detail than JPEG or JPEG 2000 formats," blogged Weinberg. "Microsoft is shooting to have higher quality than typical digital cameras while at a 12:1 level (most cameras use 6:1, so that's a very good thing).""

After MS's claims about WMA I say I'll believe it when I see it.
(2 replies) #8 mr_da3m0n on 26 May 2006 - 15:13
Wait... so WMV is cross-platform?

That's new to me. I still grit my teeth and make funny noises whenever I have to open one of these under OS X or Linux.

They play, sort of. But not with open codecs. With junk like win32 codecs passed through wrappers. And WMV9 will not play properly most of the time.

It's a proprietary format, not open...
#8.1 Liisachan on 27 May 2006 - 14:43
Quote - mr_da3m0n said @ #5.1
Wait... so WMV is cross-platform?
WMV3 by WMV9 is VC-1 Simple or Main, and VC-1 is now a standard approved by SMPTE (421M-2006). Whether you like it or not is another matter. I'd say no.
#8.2 mr_da3m0n on 29 May 2006 - 18:02
Because it is standardised doesn't mean it's cross platform, also.
(1 reply) #9 SimplyPotatoes on 26 May 2006 - 16:07
jpeg compression sucks. gif are too limited, png is not supported enough. seems like everyone uses flash now for web based things or text ads.new advanced compression algortyhms will be fun
#9.1 McG on 27 May 2006 - 00:27
Well said.
#10 TheDA on 26 May 2006 - 16:42
Hmmmm WMP? couldnt they think of a better name. it sounds hell of a lot like windows media player.
#11 mrbester on 26 May 2006 - 16:59
Whatever happened to FIFs? You could get some amazing compression with those and zoom into an image with a lot less chance of jaggies...
(4 replies) #12 Kreuger on 26 May 2006 - 17:49
I don't have any problems with png.
#12.1 theyarecomingforyou on 26 May 2006 - 17:57
Exactly, particularly as bandwidth increases thanks to ever faster broadband. The biggest problem is Microsoft's non-existent support for PNG transparency in IE. Do I have any faith in Microsoft when they can't even support PNG properly? NO! I just can't give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
#12.2 markjensen on 26 May 2006 - 18:21
PNG isn't exactly a good substitute for JPG.

Here is a sample PNG picture found in a google image search: http://www.larsson-folger.de/anna/img/CRodrigoWall.png
It is 848 KB (869,032 bytes)

Compare to JPEGs I saved at different 'quality' settings:
100% http://markjensen.googlepages.com/CRodrigoWall_100.jpg 422 KB (432,302 bytes)
90% http://markjensen.googlepages.com/CRodrigoWall_90.jpg 143 KB (146,636 bytes)
75% http://markjensen.googlepages.com/CRodrigoWall_75.jpg 82.4 KB (84,467 bytes)
50% http://markjensen.googlepages.com/CRodrigoWall_50.jpg 52.2 KB (53,496 bytes)

Now, for web pages 50% may be fine, and 10 JPG pictures can be viewed/downloaded in the time it took that one PNG. Even the 100% setting gets you a 2 to 1 advantage over the PNG when it comes to filesize/bandwidth.
#12.3 theyarecomingforyou on 26 May 2006 - 18:33
I appreciate that but why do we need to replace JPG? Where quality or transparency are needed you can use PNG and JPG can remain for typical usage. I also accept that we shouldn't remain in the past when better formats present themselves but I don't trust Microsoft - if they had a good track record with supporting other image formats then that would be great but it seems that they only give attention to something that directly benefits them, rather than consumers.
#12.4 markjensen on 26 May 2006 - 18:59
I don't think that there is a need to replace JPEG, but I would be in favor of an improved system that allows transparency on JPEGs, plus better and faster compression. What Microsoft has here could potentially be a great picture format - I just feel it needs to be unencumbered by licensing or patents. And it is that part that I am wary about.
#13 simon360 on 26 May 2006 - 18:10
Well, if it's going to be an internet supported thing (you know what I mean) then Firefox is screwed. Linux is screwed. Os X is screwed. But it won't catch on I don't think.
#14 *John* on 26 May 2006 - 18:15
If this is going to be a propriatory format that will only be able to be used in Windows or IE, then simply stand back and watch it crash and burn.....

Too many people use Mac/Linux Firefox/Opera etc....
#15 Quick Reply on 26 May 2006 - 18:42
I'll jump on their bandwagon when they post the source on sourceforge :rofl:
#16 KenLin on 26 May 2006 - 18:57
png is not supported enough? where is it not supported? just in ie as far as I know.
(2 replies) #17 Rodrigo on 26 May 2006 - 19:53
Quote - KenLin said @ #8.1
png is not supported enough? where is it not supported? just in ie as far as I know.


Sorry but that's what... 85% of the people using Internet?
#17.1 rm20010 on 26 May 2006 - 20:59
Quote - Rodrigo said @ #15.1
Quote - KenLin said @ #8.1
png is not supported enough? where is it not supported? just in ie as far as I know.


Sorry but that's what... 85% of the people using Internet?


And that 85% won't be able to view WMPs unless Microsoft succeeds in getting that population to update to IE7, or roll out a patch for IE6 (which I doubt).
#17.2 nacs on 27 May 2006 - 01:51
Actually, IE does support PNG. It's just that they don't support alpha-transparency correctly but there are workarounds.

But anyway, this Windows media photo idea sounds like nothing more than vendor lock-in to me. By making Paint, Word and IE 7 save all images in WMP format by default, they'll get some marketshare. Then people will start posting these pictures to websites and guess what? It will require Windows to view.

Using Firefox? No sorry, no WMPs for you. Using Mac? Linux? Nope. Use IE7 and Windows. Because that's all the world needs. </sarcasm>
#18 Joshie on 27 May 2006 - 02:10
PNG really hasn't taken off as a popular format. I mean, I appreciate what it offers in quality and all, but jpeg is still the dominant format, and it kinda, you know, sucks. Even if you wanna call it 'pushing', MS at least has the ability to create a new format and get it used.

Funny tho' how image compression is one of those things I never think about these days. I've just gotten so used to jpeg for space, gif for animation, bmp for lossless. Man I'm living in the past.
(1 reply) #19 nexx on 27 May 2006 - 07:41
Sounds like it's aimed at mid-level photography, not the web and general use.

The "half the size a comparable JPEG" claim sounds like bs. Why must companies put out such marketing trash when it comes to audio/video/(and now image) compression? I dont like to use a product that insults my intelligence.
#19.1 chconline on 27 May 2006 - 14:11
I don't see any problem with that. Windows Media Audio is an excellent format, I use them for all my tracks for portable usage. WMV... are there any real competitors, not if you really want to install crap like Quicktime on your computer.
#20 fpd on 27 May 2006 - 10:12
This was inevitable! With the poor adoption of JPEG2000, Microsoft was bound to want to develop its own format. This will most likely be distributed with WMP11 final and work in most browsers via a plugin. Or maybe they'll distribute it with WPF-E so linux, mac os and mobile clients also get support. Hopefully in time they'll open the format fingers crossed.
#21 Arckon on 27 May 2006 - 20:44
I'm not surprised by this at all. MS has always come up with their own formats and force people to use them and then make them for Windows only (at least for a good bit of time). The open source world should have pre-empted this by making their own format that does pretty much their own thing, and then allow it to become the next standard instead of MS doing it and then screwing a lot of people (at least for a while before it's hacked or finally gets third-party support).

We knew it was coming. They did it for video, audio, office file formats, and now images! They have to have their hands in everything just so they can screw everyone else over.

</rant>

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)