Microsoft HD Photo heads to standards body.

[Express]

Adobe and Microsoft are pushing a new HD Photo format.

The new format supports a broader color gamut making it ideal for digital camera photography.

It can store 16 or 32 bits of data for each color, compared with JPEG's 8 bits, making it easier to discern shadow details or the subtle tonal variations of snow in sunlight.

It compresses data twice as efficiently as JPEG, with either twice the quality at a given file size or half the file size at a given quality.

It's designed to work well in camera image-processing chips, and to reduce memory requirements, it encodes images chunk by chunk without having to store the complete image at one time.

Microsoft has built support for the newer format into Windows Vista.

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+Make+our+HD+..._3-6165004.html

Edited March 8, 2007 by bangbang023

[Baptist]

Cool... now a picture to see the difference

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

bah, we don't need this.

Camera brand's RAW format is enough to have a "negative"

[Digitalx]

it's about the same as JPEG-2000 so this is a good comparison.

[Veedems Veteran]

bah, we don't need this.

Camera brand's RAW format is enough to have a "negative"

But RAW isn't standardized, nor does it offer the level of compression this format does.

[panicswitched]

most RAW stuff requires a license as well =)

[Aero Ultimate]

it's about the same as JPEG-2000 so this is a good comparison.

Jpeg2000 does much better than just twice the quality, so I don't see what this new format should be good for, especially when it's just some crappy proprietary format.

Jpeg2000 can be used with free image viewers (e.g. FastStone Image Viewer, which also supports batch conversion of any size to Jpeg2000).

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

But RAW isn't standardized, nor does it offer the level of compression this format does.

I prefer modifying images with my RAW file Bangbang. Nothing will be as easy as the brand RAW file to change exposition compensation, chromatic aberations to only name these 2.

And I know RAW is not standardized, have a look at my sig :p

[hotdog666al]

Schweet, JPEG 2000 looks good, so this is something to look forward to I guess! :)

[.AlleymaN]

This new format will only work if it doesn't inherit JPEG2000 license problems.

BTW, why link to a blog which then links to the actual story!

[daz-]

But RAW isn't standardized, nor does it offer the level of compression this format does.

Yea really. Lets see you post a RAW image file on a website.

This is meant to give much higher quality images then JPG, with the ease of not having to process before posting to websites or sending via email.

It has many advantages, one such one, often overlooked, is the codec is designed to be very efficient. It can allows cameras to compress and save images to disc much faster. Good for those who want to snap many images very quickly...

[Aero Ultimate]

This new format will only work if it doesn't inherit JPEG2000 license problems.

This is Adobe and MS we're talking about! So, no happening until hell freezes over.

If anything, licensing will be even more restrictive and expensive.

Also, as I already pointed out, you can use Jpeg2000 with freeware apps just fine.

[darktiger]

Cant wait...

[HawkMan]

it's about the same as JPEG-2000 so this is a good comparison.

This example shows exactly the other problem with Jpeg200(outside of licensing problems)

yes, jpeg2000 doesn't have the barely visible artifacts. but it does blur out details and clear lines. making the image blurred and undetailed.

it's also kinda funny how peopel claim stuff is crappy or sucks because it's proprietary. HD Photo has a lot of advantages over jpeg 2000, besides nor defocusing your image and seemingly replacing details with gradients that are similar(wich it also seems to be doing, probably a peculiarity of the algortihm).

And both Gif,Jpeg and Jpeg2000 are properietary, so you can't complain abotu HD photo being properietary whent he format you are supporting also is. a format that was pronounced dead on arrival because of licensing problems patent problems and infighting and a general non-need to suport it. sure the problems with Jpeg 200 "may" be fixed now... but people don't want to take the chance,t hey don't care, JP2 died and will never be ressurected. otuside of the geeks that where around when it was first announced and you had to pay to save jp2 files, noone even knows it exist. and noone cares to change this.

Edited March 8, 2007 by HawkMan

[Crazysah]

I think Jpeg2000 is way better than the current jpeg!

Go Microsoft!

[Elliot B.]

I think Jpeg2000 is way better than the current jpeg!

Go Microsoft!

JPEG 2000 is nothing to do with Microsoft.

[markwolfe Veteran]

...

And both Gif,Jpeg and Jpeg2000 are properietary, so you can't complain abotu HD photo being properietary...

People incorrectly use "proprietary" when they really ought to use the terms "patented" or "licensed".

That said, GIF is free to use with the expiration of the Unisys LZH patent.

The JPEG format is free to use with the overturning of Forgent Networks patent claims.

However, Microsoft's "HD Photo" is not free to use, with license restrictions that forbid inclusion in software like Linux (surprise!) and GIMP.

c. Distribution Restrictions. You may not...

...

modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that

* the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or

* others have the right to modify it.

So, a program like GIMP which allows users to install and use as many GIMP copies as they like cannot support Microsoft's file format, based on that licensing clause.

[HawkMan]

And that's my biggest problem witht he whole Open source community.

Their insistence and in fact licenseign rules that limits their own programs.

There's is no sensible reason why any open source license shoudl insist that all code added to OS project needs to be released, it's backwards and only a hindrance to open source itself.

Why does it hurt Open source if a codec reader like HD-photo was icnluded in pre-compiled applications, and the source was distributed without this code,but anyoen compilign it could choose to include this module. It's not only MS own license that prohibits this, it's the Open source licenses used as well, wich have these same restrictions.

Not everyone that want sto release software freely and even open source wants everyone to be abel to own the rights and do with as they wish with their code. Personally if I wrote a usefull app or piece of code, I woudl probably releease it for free, I coudl even release the source, but I would never release it in any of the OS licenses that literally gives anyone the right to use my code and make money of it(as logn as they make the code available, oh yay) and never have to give me anything in return despite them potentially using it as a key element and making a lot of money of it.

As it is though, if this is adopted as a standard through ISO or something, if they go that route, it's not like they can keep to that license anyway. or rather they coudl for their own codec code, but they'd have to release the specifics of the format so other peopel could write codecs for it.

[markwolfe Veteran]

And that's my biggest problem witht he whole Open source community.

Their insistence and in fact licenseign rules that limits their own programs.

There's is no sensible reason why any open source license shoudl insist that all code added to OS project needs to be released, it's backwards and only a hindrance to open source itself.

...

Stop a minute. You don't have a problem with the "whole Open Source Community". BSD license is Open Source, but doesn't have the "source code release" requirement. (I personally view this as a limitation that allows people to "lock up" the work of others by then releasing only closed source versions of the programs.)

You have a hearburn with GPL, which requires people using that code also pass along the same freedoms they were given.

In the future, please state "GPL" when you complain about the requirement to pass along the same rights you got when you received the program/code.

As it is though, if this is adopted as a standard through ISO or something, if they go that route, it's not like they can keep to that license anyway. or rather they coudl for their own codec code, but they'd have to release the specifics of the format so other peopel could write codecs for it.

And why not? Other standards can be registered, yet have ugly licensing terms.

[I am Reid]

Stop a minute. You don't have a problem with the "whole Open Source Community". BSD license is Open Source, but doesn't have the "source code release" requirement. (I personally view this as a limitation that allows people to "lock up" the work of others by then releasing only closed source versions of the programs.)

You have a hearburn with GPL, which requires people using that code also pass along the same freedoms they were given.

In the future, please state "GPL" when you complain about the requirement to pass along the same rights you got when you received the program/code.

And why not? Other standards can be registered, yet have ugly licensing terms.

Guess what? Microsoft is a business, they are not a charity.

get over yourself

[markwolfe Veteran]

Guess what? Microsoft is a business, they are not a charity.

get over yourself

I never asked Microsoft to give anything away. Please don't read your own bias into my posts.

I was differentiating "GPL" from "BSD" when it comes to Open Source, then I mentioned that this could still be an approved standard, regardless of license terms.

Nope. Not asking Microsoft to give away anything.

A post or two earlier, I did comment that Microsoft's license forbids use in GPL-licensed apps. But I didn't ask for them to release it free there, either.

[ichi]

There's is no sensible reason why any open source license shoudl insist that all code added to OS project needs to be released, it's backwards and only a hindrance to open source itself.

There's a reason: every improvement made to code you release under the GPL license can be merged back into your own project.

It might not be the best license if you just want to make a living of a piece of code you just wrote, but does help pushing innovation while saving in R&D.

[Aero Ultimate]

otuside of the geeks that where around when it was first announced and you had to pay to save jp2 files, noone even knows it exist. and noone cares to change this.

Why should people care about that HD Photo crap then? No one knows that it exists either, and no one will care to change that even much less, considered the licensing is even much more restrictive.

[Hello1024]

Back on topic...

I believe HD photo has a lot of other benefits no other single image format has. For example: (from memory)

Full alpha transparency (like PNG)

Very good compression (like JPEG2000)

Use on low memory devices (like JPEG)

Allows animation (like GIF)

Allows multiple images per file (like TIFF(?))

Allows the storage of metadata (like EXIF in JPEGs)

Allows the storage of thumbnails (like some jpeg addon(?))

Can use other custom colour channels (for example CMYK in TIFF)

Can use more bits per channel.

As far as I can see, if it does indeed support all the above, this formt is way better than any other single image format out there, simply because it has so many features. Imagine for example being able to use full alpha blended photos in web pages, which has been hard to do with any other format, because PNG is the only web format with full alpha blending, and that doesn't do well with photographic content. The multiple images in a single file would be usefull where you have a series of images that should be kept together, for example the original frames from a panorama, or pages from a book.

The optimisation for low memory devices is good because it offers the possibility to reduce the amount of resources required to, for example run a digital photo frame, or in a desktop pc environment allows very quick thumbnail generation by decompressing potentially hundreds at the same time.

The custom colour channels allows use in printing, and since the exact colours of each channel can be accurately defined, it allows the full gamut of a device to be represented, rather than just whats in sRGB, since that misses out some visible colours.

I'm no expert in image formats processing, just thought I should point out the massive potential advantages this format, or another with it's feature set has, and the way it could change a lot of things for the better. Remember the basic idea of JPEG compression is very old now, and could really do with an injection of new features!