Microsoft HD Photo Plug-in for Adobe Photoshop

[Malisk]

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).

Yeah, that's pretty brain dead and a slap in the face of any amateur developer only trying to provide easily available tools for the community people won't have to pay for. I won't use any technologies licensed this way and I can't imagine why they'd do a thing like this. It hurts free software development and adoption on Windows as well as other platforms.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Jugalator

[rajputwarrior]

What a useless comparison. You do realize that you're re-compressing compressed photo/image formats right? That's not what this format is designed for. You really have brought the Neowin quality bar to an all-time low.

that's the first think i thought, you need raw images first to make that comparison

[riahc3]

Again the comparison, Aero Ultimate, you made is crappy, stupid and can not be used as a base. You want a REAL comparison between different formats? Take a RAW image and convert them to each of the format you want. I could give a rats ass about your lossless crap. RAW is the highest, uncompressed quality a image can take.

That is a real comparison.

[Stebet]

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.

Nonsense!

I suggest you take a look at the System.Windows.Media.Imaging namespace that is part of Windows Presentation Foundation. There you will find WmpBitmapEncoder and WmpBitmapDecoder classes (along with encoders/decoders for jpg, png, gif and tiff at least).

Programming a viewer for HD Photo shouldn't be hard from there on. I'd do it myself if i had the time. Do note that it requires the .NET 3.0 Framework (as Windows Presentation Foundation is a part of it).

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

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.

I think what he means is better quality than JPEG :)

I can try this with my canon dslr tonight if people want some good examples of how this format impacts digital photos from a RAW/JPEG100%/TIFF comparison.

What say you!

[bucko]

No Mac version :pinch: ?

[riahc3]

I think what he means is better quality than JPEG :)

I can try this with my canon dslr tonight if people want some good examples of how this format impacts digital photos from a RAW/JPEG100%/TIFF comparison.

What say you!

That would be great and I myself would have no problem doing the convertions if you do not want to.

Post the RAW pictures in a ZIP or something and upload them somewhere.

[Aero Ultimate]

<snipped>

Edited March 13, 2007 by Chad
Uncalled for

[MrCobra]

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'd rather have the raw file. My camera is 10MP and the raw files are only around 7-9megs. Better than a lossy format any day.

[Stebet]

I'd rather have the raw file. My camera is 10MP and the raw files are only around 7-9megs. Better than a lossy format any day.

HD Photo can save files as lossless.

[Aero Ultimate]

HD Photo can save files as lossless.

So what? Jp2 can save files as lossless too, and you don't need Photoshop for that - freeware apps are fully sufficient.

[Stebet]

So what? Jp2 can save files as lossless too, and you don't need Photoshop for that - freeware apps are fully sufficient.

You don't need Photoshop for HD Photo either. Did you read my response above about the API's being available with the .NET 3.0 Framework?

And i was responding to MrCobra complaining about not wanting to substitute his RAW files with a lossy format which HD Photo doesn't have to be since it supports lossless compression.

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

That would be great and I myself would have no problem doing the conversions if you do not want to.

Post the RAW pictures in a ZIP or something and upload them somewhere.

Done

Here is the comparison, my conclusion is that for high end photo editing this is not needed, for generic web use this is also not needed considering the vast amount of JPEG scaling available with excellent IQ retained. I saww little to no difference between the HDP format and JPEG format both using the "high" quality setting (JPEG mode 8 and HDP mode 0.75 to get it the same filesize as the JPEG version or as close to as possible)

For the comparison I imported the RAW into Photoshop then saved it to JPEG and WDP separately using the above modes. I then imported the jpeg and HDP and layered them over the RAW keeping the RAW as the background and only leaving the sections in GREEN boxes as HDP and JPG. I kept the original resolution and saved the end file as a TIFF file for lossless quality. The RAW was imported as SRGB for standards on a normal monitor display and each image was saved using this SRGB profile.

Click the thumb below for the TIFF

RAW with XMP can be found here + here

Anyway for non destructive editing with full RAW support the DNG format is the way forward.

BTW for the RAW debaters upstairs, RAW is not an image format, in order to edit a RAW photo you have to convert it to an editable format such as JPEG / TIF / WDP - RAW cannot be worked with until it has been converted.

Edited March 12, 2007 by mrk

[MrCobra]

I converted a RAW (6MP) file to JPG and WDP and uploaded to RapidShare for people to look at. File size (RAR) is 8.41 megs. I used the same quality settings for both pictures. Image dimensions: 3072x2048.

JPG = 2,858,586

WDP = 6,010,817 ( The RAW file is 4,916,782 )

Like I said above, I'd rather keep the RAW files rather than use this new format.

Download link @ http://rapidshare.com/files/20748662/JPG_WDP_TEST.rar.html

[Stebet]

I converted a RAW (6MP) file to JPG and WDP and uploaded to RapidShare for people to look at. File size (RAR) is 8.41 megs. I used the same quality settings for both pictures. Image dimensions: 3072x2048.

JPG = 2,858,586

WDP = 6,010,817 ( The RAW file is 4,916,782 )

Like I said above, I'd rather keep the RAW files rather than use this new format.

Download link @ http://rapidshare.com/files/20748662/JPG_WDP_TEST.rar.html

Something tells me that RAW file isn't uncompressed then. If it is a 6MP picture then <1 byte per pixel doesn't make any sense for a RAW file unless it was using some lossless compression that gets a better than 3:1 ratio which would be quite a feat for an image that isn't comprised of large solid blocks of color.

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

Something tells me that RAW file isn't uncompressed then. If it is a 6MP picture then <1 byte per pixel doesn't make any sense for a RAW file unless it was using some lossless compression that gets a better than 3:1 ratio which would be quite a feat for an image that isn't comprised of large solid blocks of color.

RAW is not an image format, it is the information recorded by the sensor with no image processing in place. WDP/TIFF/JPEG etc are all image formats that save image processing. It's common for a lossless image format to be bigger than the RAW, it contains all the editing that has been done to it and it has been converted to a contained format.

RAW is the highest quality photo you can get but TIFF for example is the highest quality image format there is and in order to print a RAW photo it must be converted to an image format like TIFF and now WDP

[riahc3]

<snipped>

Your first and original review of this format was using a lossless PNG; Which is not a RAW and what the original debate and discussion was about.

Personally I think you have done the review simply for us Neowin members to kiss your ass and treat you like god. I for one won't and If i honestly wanted to see real-life situations and conclusions I would take my own digital camera, take some pictures in its RAW format, and then do these conversions.

You should have commented in your review that the .cr2 extension is one of the many extensions that companies use when you use their camera in RAW picture taking mode because certain members may not be aware of it. But of course I didn't know that RAW images have different extensions :whistle:

And also in that review you said yourself that there are no pictures; Why should we believe what you say? For that matter, why should we even trust your "excelent" eyesight? :laugh:

If you want people to kiss your ass, don't flame them when they are stating the truth about you comparing the format to PNG. Make a good review with at least downloadable links (since this format currently cannot be viewed on browsers).

Edited March 13, 2007 by Chad

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

lol...

[Chad]

All this over a type of image file? Let's calm it down a bit.

[1759]

RAW is not an image format, it is the information recorded by the sensor with no image processing in place. WDP/TIFF/JPEG etc are all image formats that save image processing. It's common for a lossless image format to be bigger than the RAW, it contains all the editing that has been done to it and it has been converted to a contained format.

RAW is the highest quality photo you can get but TIFF for example is the highest quality image format there is and in order to print a RAW photo it must be converted to an image format like TIFF and now WDP

Exactly, and RAW isn't exactly a standard; Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Panasonic, Sigma, etc all use different RAW processing. I use RAW as it allows me to do post-processing without losing information, but you still have to convert the RAW image to some other format in order to easily share or view it, without specialized viewers or the right plug-ins.

There is the Adobe RAW format, but I don't believe many companies use it, other than the Pentax K10D.

I just look at HDPhoto as something that could replace JPEG, and still have acceptable quality and file size.

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

Exactly, and RAW isn't exactly a standard; Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Panasonic, Sigma, etc all use different RAW processing. I use RAW as it allows me to do post-processing without losing information, but you still have to convert the RAW image to some other format in order to easily share or view it, without specialized viewers or the right plug-ins.

There is the Adobe RAW format, but I don't believe many companies use it, other than the Pentax K10D.

I just look at HDPhoto as something that could replace JPEG, and still have acceptable quality and file size.

Raw is a standard as it's viewable with any raw viewer such as the raw image viewer addon for windows created by MS or in Photoshop/adobe bridge or even and the only reason the different brands of camera use different RAW methods is because they all use different digital CCD/CMOS sensors and the encoding used to create that raw information is specific to each manufacturer.

However I do not think HDP will ever replace jpeg, look at previous tries at other file formats that tried this (AAC, OGG etc etc) that tried to be the next mp3 but in the end just not being won over by the well established mp3 format.

The same way JPG has been established for even longer and it is going to take a heck of a lot of work to get HDP supported cross platform and on portable devices.

Edited March 14, 2007 by mrk

[Aero Ultimate]

You should have commented in your review that the .cr2 extension is one of the many extensions that companies use when you use their camera in RAW picture taking mode because certain members may not be aware of it. But of course I didn't know that RAW images have different extensions :whistle:

Yes, it was quite obvious that you didn't know it and thus were making uninformed comments :pinch:

And also in that review you said yourself that there are no pictures; Why should we believe what you say? For that matter, why should we even trust your "excelent" eyesight? :laugh:

I never said such nonsense :pinch:

I provided links to the original Raw pics, and I provided a link to an archive containing the resulting Jpg and Jp2 pics right in my article so you can compare for yourself.

Here are the links, once again:

Article with links to all the files: Link

My comparison (comment #12): Link

Cr2 Raw image: http://staff.neowin.net/davelegg/linear.cr2

Orf Raw image: http://www.iol.ie/~fuzzy/images/PC252525.ORF

Archive with the Jpg and Jp2 files created from these files: Download link

Take a look at the images and see for yourself, or download the Cr2 and Raw files from the links above and use FastStone Image Viewer or XnView (both free) to compress them to Jpg and Jp2 and compare the resulting files.

[Stebet]

Exactly, and RAW isn't exactly a standard; Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Panasonic, Sigma, etc all use different RAW processing. I use RAW as it allows me to do post-processing without losing information, but you still have to convert the RAW image to some other format in order to easily share or view it, without specialized viewers or the right plug-ins.

There is the Adobe RAW format, but I don't believe many companies use it, other than the Pentax K10D.

And that is exactly the market MS is after here. The HD Photo codec was designed to be easily implemented in hardware and to have extensive metadata and ICC support. Wouldn't it be better (although requiring a bit more space) if all cameras simply had the option to deliver lossless HD Photo files as output instead of every manufacturer having their own RAW format as well as being easily viewable on all PC's?

Granted MS have to convince camera manufacturers to implement HD Photo in their camers but i'm pretty they are working very hard on that.

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

And that is exactly the market MS is after here. The HD Photo codec was designed to be easily implemented in hardware and to have extensive metadata and ICC support. Wouldn't it be better (although requiring a bit more space) if all cameras simply had the option to deliver lossless HD Photo files as output instead of every manufacturer having their own RAW format as well as being easily viewable on all PC's?

Granted MS have to convince camera manufacturers to implement HD Photo in their camers but i'm pretty they are working very hard on that.

No because RAW is not an image format, HDphoto is, RAW iwll never be replaced because it has a primary function no image format can handle, sensor DATA that has to be converted to an image format such as HDP or JPEG or TIFF etc.

Every manufacturer will have their own RAW encryption in their RAW files, this has always been the case and will remain so forever.

People need to understand this will not replace RAW ever as they are two totally different things.

[Stebet]

No because RAW is not an image format, HDphoto is, RAW iwll never be replaced because it has a primary function no image format can handle, sensor DATA that has to be converted to an image format such as HDP or JPEG or TIFF etc.

Every manufacturer will have their own RAW encryption in their RAW files, this has always been the case and will remain so forever.

People need to understand this will not replace RAW ever as they are two totally different things.

I'm not sure you understood me correctly. I said "option" as in you could both get the raw data and the raw data converted to the HD Photo format. I know raw isn't a format, it's just pure data from the CCD. HD Photo however is capable of storing that raw data in a lossless standardized format which must be easier for photographers to work with rather then having a separate tool or codec for every camera type right?

How can you not want a standardized format to store the raw data in?

HD Photo was designed to be able to store that sensor data without losing any information (that includes maintaining bit-depth, color information, adding metadata etc.).