- This topic is empty.
Microsoft try to kill off Jpeg with it’s new HD format
-
CNet has an interesting article about the new image format that Microsoft is putting into Vista. The specs look interesting:
? For each pixel, HD Photo stores at least 16 bits of data for each color, compared with 8 bits with JPEG. That means subtle tonal variations in shadowy or bright areas can be preserved, even through the editing and printing process. And for the cutting-edge crowd, it can store 32 bits per color, useful for combining multiple photos into a “high dynamic range” image that spans the darkest darks to the brightest brights.
? HD Photo’s compression algorithm produces images that have twice the quality as JPEG at the same file size or the same quality at half the file size. The algorithm uses simple instructions that can be relatively easily built into cameras’ image-processing chips.
? HD Photo builds in smaller “thumbnail” images for quick viewing of files at small sizes. In contrast, a computer operating system must generate JPEG thumbnails.
? The encoding algorithm, set to its highest standard, is “lossless,” meaning that it preserves all the image data with no loss of quality. JPEG is “lossy.” And although JPEG 2000 has a lossless feature, it requires a separate algorithm and therefore, in the case of camera chips, more circuitry.
? HD Photo uses Microsoft’s scRGB color space, which spans a much wider gamut of possible colors than the universally supported but widely derided sRGB scheme. “HD Photo adds support for a higher range of colors, which is becoming more important,” Connor said.
And although cameras and computers typically describe colors in RGB terms–varying amounts of red, green and blue–HD Photo also can use CMYK that uses cyan, magenta, yellow and black. That’s useful for sending images to printers, which often use CMYK inks.
? The algorithm can decode only a selected portion of the HD Photo image that needs to be displayed, rather than the entire image, which reduces memory requirements and speeds up performance. It can also be encoded chunk by chunk without having to store the entire image in memory.
? HD Photos can be easily rotated in 90-degree increments. JPEG images must be decoded and re-encoded, degrading quality slightly with each change.
? HD Photo images can be gargantuan–262 million pixels on an edge, or 68.6 terapixels total, as long as the compressed image doesn’t exceed 32GB in size.
Here’s the full story: http://news.com.com/Vista+to+give+HD+Photo+format+more+exposure/2100-1045_3-6153730.html?tag=nefd.lede
Based on the brief summary posted above, this sounds very interesting (and promising). I do, however, think that the headline is somewhat sensationalist! I think the JPEG format will be with us for quite some time yet. Just look at the Adobe DNG format – touted as a universal raw format, it really hasn’t made any inroads into the world of the raw image. Much as I like the sound of the new MS file format, I think it will be just another file format to add to the long list of image file formats. I remember when the PNG format was first developed, it was going to take over from GIF and JPG as the de-facto web graphics file type. This was at a time when JPG received a lot of publicity over royalty and patent infringements. PNG is still with us, but it hasn’t replaced JPG or GIF.
Will be interesting to see where this goes.
Believe me, if this is MS trying to leverage the imaging industry to support their closed-standard idea of what should be, it won’t happen. MS aren’t imaging experts, Adobe are. If MS knew a damn thing about imaging we’d all be using Microsoft Photoshop. If MS knew a damn thing about search engines we’d all be using MSN, not Google. Same story with IE6 and 7 and their warped interpretation of W3C HTML standards. Mozilla will win out in the end, as website developers and users will just not stand for MS trying to dictate to the website/browser market by making W3C-compliant sites that work fine in Mozilla/Gecko browsers break in IE.
I fucking hate Microsoft, if the above doesn’t make that clear ;) Owning a majority share in the marketplace due to user ignorance or apathy is not the same as being No.1 on merit.
Steve,
I sense that you’re maybe still undecided-
In order for an image format to be successful.
its got to be interchangable and compatable with other formats-
I can’t see how it can be anything other than another ‘save as’ option,
in order for it to be a success.It all remains to be seen, of course-
and it wouldn’t look any different on my current (Mac) monitor anyway-
I’ve already run out of pixels in .psd,
so bigger images will be a good thing-And presumably this wont be the last new image format we’ll ever see-
joseph
SteveFE wrote:
I fucking hate Microsoft, if the above doesn’t make that clear ;)
I’m with you there… but I still cough to be a Microsoft “Partner”, though I hate doing it.
I still set up Windows servers for my clients because I know that they won’t find anyone to look after Ubuntu if I get run over tomorrow.
What distro of Linux do you use Steve?
Erm, Pete, I think I use the Mac distro. I like one-button mouses and colour-accurate monitors ;)
PS, at least one good thing about M$: they stopped developing IE for Mac after version 5 because they realised they were onto a total loser once Safari/Camino/Firefox came out. But IE5/Mac is probably the most W3C-broken browser ever made, so if my webpages work in that they’ll most likely work great in IE6/7 for PC ;)
Isn’t it funny how Windows Vista bears an uncanny resemblance to OSX? Almost an actionable resemblance.
SteveFE wrote:
so if my webpages work in that they’ll most likely work great in IE6/7 for PC ;)
Don’t count on it. I’ve made pages that work in IE7 and IE5 but go totally pear-shaped in IE6. It’s a pain in the neck when you can’t run 2 versions side by side. Thank God for Firefox.
It’s a bit silly to think that IE is going to fail any time in the near future. Microsoft has a built in userbase that is HUMONGOUS – everybody that runs windows – and I’d say a vast majority of people using those machines don’t know, nor do they care, what Firefox is. I personally prefer Firefox myself, and I always install it on the computers that my family/friends end up getting me to fix, but IE will be well over the 50% market share in the PC world for many years to come, methinks.
Interesting article…
Not sure if MS ‘Open initiative’ is good enough instead of a truelly open standard. Missing CS3 and having a plug-in is a shame. At least there will be mac plug-in. As long as they don’t have any DRM in there! Can’t imagine Apple incorporating (or being allowed) it into OSX. Anyway, it will be RAW and jpeg for me for the moment, no plans of getting Vista any time soon. For sound I use MP3 for its compatibility, even though it is inferior byte for byte to .wmv or aac. Guess something similar for jpeg and I imagine its dominance for web use won’t change anyway.
I wouldn’t worry about this new format. I’m a Microsoft-phile if there ever was one and this whole thing smells like a marketing ploy timed with the domestic release of Vista/Office. If this format had of been a big deal for MS they would’ve released more info back in Novemeber with the business release.
They’ll never replace JPEG. It’s too universal … web, cameras, etc.
EDIT: just noticed a timestamp on an MS article: Nov 16 – my bad!
From what I’ve been told, one of uncle Bill’s other interests is a company that runs a gigantic photo archive somewhere in an old nuke shelter in Virginia or somewhere similar.
why do people get exited about new picture formats,
there are tons of them already and none of them really go away
lets face it how many formats can you save from photoshop. and more importantly how many do you actually use
my list of ones i use out of photoshop are:
PSD
TIF
JPEG
PNGwell there the main ones, and so yet another format is just not that important, until it has a realimpact on something
Sorry if I miss the point but why do I care?
Jpeg was never intended to give high quality images. ANY compressed file format will lose data, and therefore lose quality.
With bigger hard disks, flash disks, and bigger faster internet connections etc, why would I care about a new format?
If I want small file size I use Jpg. If I need quality I use TIFF / PSD. And of course I use RAW too. I just can’t see I need a new compressed format.
Tim
PS – just reread this, and it sounds like a rant… it’s not :D
Now leave me and my beautiful one button mac and Firefox alone :D:D
whoa tim dude you soooo far behind the times, use a two button mouse on ya mac and you will be happy
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I not it shouldnt be done but I use a cordless microsoft mouse on my mac, well actually of 4 computers through a KVM
lol
I was just being sarcastic. I do use a mac, but 8 button cordless logitech mouse and a wacom tablet all the way….
If only they came in white :D
Anyway… Back to the thread…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
