MS Proposes JPEG Alternative 633
automatix writes "Microsoft's new competitor to the omnipresent JPEG format has been shown at WinHEC and is discussed on CNET. The Windows Media Photo format has many promises associated with it. The program manager is claiming 'We can do it in half the size of a JPEG file.'. While 'the philosophy has been that licensing should not be a restriction', it is interesting that the specification requires a click-through agreement to even read it."
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM.
(Oh, and expect PNG support in IE7 to be downgraded)
Big claims indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternative or Replacement? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, shouldn't they be concentrating on finishing Vista?
first reaction, second reaction (Score:3, Insightful)
GIF, JPG, and PNG do everything I need -- why a new image format?
My second reaction is:
Ok, I'm innovative, so maybe there is a good reason for a new image format. Maybe I'll read more. But then I re-read it's from Microsoft and it's got called Windows in it's name, and I think I've got enough MS and Win in my life -- I really don't want more.
Conclusion: No thanks.
boxlight
Obvious statement (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the above is about as likely as duck being joined by a flying pig...
Another Debate (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, is anyone else smelling that special scent of Microsoft imperialism where their current markets aren't satiating their need to dominate? I mean, they used to make only operating systems (which took them a while to perfect) and then they made Office (which took them a while to perfect) and then they made the Xbox and now they want us to use a new photo format?
I don't mind my JPEGs taking up 2 ~ 3MB each, in fact I prefer PNG [wikipedia.org] which are small and widely supported. Granted, they're not half the size of a JPEG but--you know what?--PNG doesn't have a lawsuit history like JPEG [wired.com] & GIF [gnu.org] have.
PNG is only lossless compression so I suppose it's only natural to switch to a file format that can be either lossless or lossy & will adequately adjust performance of the 'decoding' of the file if you select lossy. After reading the articles linked in the story, it sounds like Microsoft did a good job in the algorithm for this one
Even a better one (Score:2, Insightful)
it exists already (Score:3, Insightful)
Embrace and Extend (Score:5, Insightful)
We've been down similar roads before (ActiveX, WMV etc)
No thanks.
So how are they going to force us to use it? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I don't beleive for one second that this is really "open". Microsoft would never do anything unless it benifited them somehow.
Re:first reaction, second reaction (Score:3, Insightful)
Better image quality for lossy format?
Better compression for lossless format?
More than 32bit colour depth?
Layers?
There's lots of reasons for new formats.
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to see how even MS's third-rate programmers could make the PNG support worse than it is in IE6.
TEE
pretty pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, compression really isn't an issue with digital cameras or image storage. Among other things, the fact that most serious photographers store RAW images is a good indication of that.
Second, lumping together JPEG and JPEG 2000 as "JPEG" doesn't make sense; JPEG 2000 already has all the advantages that Windows Media Photo claims, but it's an open standard. Microsoft should implement it, as should electronics manufacturers.
Third, Microsoft is overestimating their market position and significance in the digital imaging market.
I suppose you can't fault them for trying, but this particular attempt at monopolizing the market looks pretty pathetic.
NO, no, a million times NO (Score:3, Insightful)
these two ideas, core to the net, means that Microsoft and its eely, oily ways should be barred from submitting the spec.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
ODF differentiator? Cynical view. (Score:2, Insightful)
1) It looks like the algorithms won't be able to be patented in the European Union, so there'll be nothing to stop someone in the EU implementing their own software to do this and read/write from/to MS generated pictures.
2) Elsewhere, this could act as a differentiator for MS office. If the default image format in MS-Office is this new one, and applications that use ISO/IEC 26300-compliant (ODF-compliant) formats cannot use it due to patent restrictions, then this could act as a tool to prevent people from moving to applications that use ISO/IEC 26300-compliant methods of storing their files.
Adoption is the key, so its dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
But when MS bundles decoders with the OS, it automatically gets a huge installed base. Now how will an open format compete with that, which the users will have to download? The MS format might get adopted even if it is proprietary. Which is very very bad.
jpeg2k has no adoption is for the same reason.
Interestingly, this is where a "platform" like Firefox becomes more important. As a delivery channel, of open formats. If Firefox ever becomes the dominant browser, that will solve a lot of the distribution problems. Of course, the Firefox team will decide what to bundle, but I am sure they are nice people.
Re:Even a better one (Score:5, Insightful)
priorities much? (Score:3, Insightful)
we have plenty of image formats that work for us, and most of us have broadband anyway.
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:2, Insightful)
For consumers, because Microsoft actually makes high quality codecs. WMV has been highly competitive with MPEG4 AVC aka H.264, WMA has been highly competitve with AAC, I'm sure WMP will be highly competitve with JPEG2000 and the like. MPEG2, MP3 and JPEG are industry standards but behind the bleeding edge in compression technology. They'll all come preinstalled on the most popular OS and "just work".
For Microsofts part, because Microsoft wants to be the dominating standard of next-gen formats. Because if the three dominant formats are WMV (video), WMA (audio), WMP (photo) they can collect lots of licensing fees and Windows sales and so on. They control the features, they will always be first to release the implementation, everyone else is playing catch-up. Not to mention they will control WM*-DRM with a huge hold on all media.
Personally, I don't like WMP, I prefer Media Player Classic. But I also notice that some WMVs will not play properly using the standard DirectShow filters, ONLY in WMP. It's another one of those nice little hooks they pull. WM* formats work best not just on Windows, but WMP on Windows. But I must admit, that when I do play them the One Microsoft Way, they look and sound pretty damn good. In short, if you just take the very near-sighted approach and look at nothing but the quality, it's more of a "Why not?".
Re:it exists already (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:JPEG 2000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another Debate (Score:2, Insightful)
No, me thinkest not.
Instead of making things simple, MSFT has chosen to confound yet again. Their claim to being the OS for the masses is getting more absurd every day.
Re:first reaction, second reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with proposing another file format. The current formats we have now or in the future are never going to be good enough and there will always be room for improvement.
Having said all that, I agree with the parent comment in the fact that licencing will make or break this format and the click-through agreement doesn't bode well.
Professional photography standards (Score:2, Insightful)
A pro photographer who is worried about quality will shoot RAW (or even film). A pro photographer who is interested in getting the picture out fast will shoot JPEG, because that's what the agencies and newspapers expect. Most will shoot both and run a JPEG out in the camera before emailing it back to the editorial office.
Also having lossy and lossless in one format isn't as useful as you might think. Lossy compression saves space and transmits faster (obviously) - you lose all those benefits if you then bind a lossless file to it.
I can't see what problem they're trying to solve: the three things that better lossy compression is supposed to help: storage, bandwidth and CPU cycles improve exponentially over time. It's a very very long time since I had to wait for Photoshop to open a JPEG (although RAW files still take an age).
Re:It is TIFF hijacked (Score:5, Insightful)
What a hack job. I would recommend anybody to stay (far, far) away from supporting this format until there is a (very) strong business case for it (Be pragmatic -- don't loose money over it, but don't help this become standard).
In summary, the MS we've come to know and love is here in full force.
We already have an alternative... (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't need cameras supporting an MS image format, no sir, we need cameras supporting state of the art standards in image formats, for which MS brings nothign new with this move.
Re:pretty pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
All that tells you is it isn't an issue for serious photographers. For me as a consumer with my £100 camera and £20 storage card it certainly is an issue
Re:Even a better one (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, Mk... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft needs a fallback position (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's JPEG replacement leaves it with an option if the Forgent suit goes the wrong way. Acting as if it's happy to stop using JPEG gives Microsoft leverage in an out-of-court negotiation.
The patent in question expires in October 2006.
Just my two cents.
William vanRyper
Re:Cool (Score:1, Insightful)
Clearly you have never had to pay for bandwidth on a high traffic server.
P.S. I'm on 28.8Kbps dial-up like the majority of people outside urban areas. (I disconnected and reconnected so I could post again within the ridiculously long flood interval here)
Size does matter.
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is easier to explain with sound first.
Imagine how a recording of your voice looks, when converted to an image of a sound wave.
This waveform has peaks and valleys. If we take a triangle wave (
Frequency, when related to an image, is like the detail in an image.
The frequency, in this case, is the frequency of the cosines used to represent this image.
The cosines in a 2-d image can be imagined as taking the height of the cosine as the brightness value. The lowest value is black, and the brightest value is white. Imagine we have vertical bars of gradients from black to white. Higher frequency cosines will result in more bars in the image. These bars can be in the X (horizontal) or Y (vertical) direction.
We can add these bars together and create an image.
The basis of the fourier transform is to take an image, and convert it into this cosine representation. If we do this, we then have a list of the frequency of the cosines in the X and Y directions.
Going back to the detail in an image:
If we remove the higher frequency cosine waves, and convert the remaining data back into an image, we get a blurred version of the original image. This is the basis for many of the image filters in programs like Photoshop.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd really like MNG to become a widely-used standard, but I doubt that will happen. People use GIFs and when that isn't enough they are happy to rape peoples CPUs with Flash animations. There isn't much demand for MNG and browser manufacturer complacency will ensure that it will stay that way because it isn't usable on the web.
Re:**shrug** for real (Score:2, Insightful)
TIFF for lossless (with LZW if you want to compress) is the archival storage format. JPEG for amateurs, JPEG 2000 or Lurawave for distribution. Note I speak about photos. Documents have different standards but again, not tied to a company who doesn't give a shit to other operating systems rather their own.
Industry decided. They all have ITU etc standards each. What Microsoft does is childish, lame.
Look at AVI , look how big joke it is. This thing MS came with is a joke too.
The basic question if you want to check MS is serious or not. While they jump up and down like they found E=mc2 formula, just ask will they offer a OS X framework or quicktime codec for it. No? That is a joke than. As we are speaking about an image standard, where is their submission to ISO?
Simple as that.
You know, standard is something like JPEG 2000, TIFF with open industry standards. If I was a professional photographer, I'd store my "RAW" files too.
Algorithm details... ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Some huge claims are made of Windows Media Photo: the article implies that the format outperforms even the new JPEG2000 wavelet-based image format. But what is the compelling evidence of such performance? To my disappointment, the specifications do not even include an example visual comparison between Windows Media Photo/JPEG2000/JPEG. Furthermore, the only hint to how it actually works is this in the "Compression Algorithm Overview":
"Windows Media(TM) Photo uses a very high performance reversible color space conversion, a reversible lapped biorthogonal transform and an advanced non-arithmentic entropy coding scheme."
So what is the biorthogonal transform? Any invertible linear transform can be called "biorthogonal." And I have never heard of "arithmentic" encoding, though I have heard of "arithmetic" encoding. This is just jargon. I am not persuaded that Windows Media Photo is of interest.
Re:Ummmm why? (Score:3, Insightful)