Coffeehouse Thread

36 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Windows Media Photo to replace JPEG?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    According to this article, Microsoft has developed a new picture format that is technically superior to JPEG. This is the first thing I read about it.
    Has anyone heard about this before? Sounds interesting.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Windows Media Photo to replace JPEG?

    - No.

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    Have you read the article? It's primarily for devices (printers, scanners, cameras). It states that the quality of JPEG is not sufficient for professional photographers. Windows Media Photo offers better quality with higher compression. It also offers possibilities for manipulating the picture without having to re-encode it (like rotations).

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    However, all the pro photographers who use digital I have come accross also use macs - so its fairly moot.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Of course professional photographer's don't user JPEG! ... They all use RAW or BMP. And guess what? ... When Microsoft brings out its new "Slightly Better, but completely incompatible" version of JPEG these "professional photographers" will continue to use the RAW format in perpetuity.

    That is a lame argument anyway because such people make up less than 0.5% of computer users... The other 99.5% are happy with JPEG, PNG and GIF.

    Microsoft has an extreme case of "invented here" syndrome...

    PS - All Microsoft has done is re-invented JPEG2000 (jp2) - it is practically the same quality.

  • User profile image
    alwaysmc2

    well, if it is over-all better, than I'm game.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    All the common standards in use now are not the best at what they do, they are defacto standards and it would take a lot to replace them.

    JPEG2000 / Windows Media Photo > JPEG
    PNG > GIF (PNG doesn't do animation, MNG fills that gap)
    DivX, 3ivX, WMV etc > MPEG-2 (although DivX is used for a lot of videos and Anime shared over P2P)
    almost every new modern audio codec (e.g. AAC, OGG, WMA) > MP3

    The appeal of JPEG, GIF, MPEG-2, MP3 etc is that just about every device and software package (that is designed for the media the format is for) supports them. If you started producing in formats that aren't widely supported, you limit what hardware/software you can use (thus costing you more than sticking with less efficient formats).


    Going a bit off topic:

    The lack of overall support for a specific DRM is actually bad for the movie/music industry. iPod is dominant, but the only device that supports FairPlay AAC (and I assume the video format it uses) as they refuse to license the technology. WMA/WMV is used on more devices, but

    If Apple either implemented WMA/V or licensed FairPlay to others, there probably would be less piracy. Not going to happen though.

    I can't see DRM ever stopping piracy, infact it probably encourages it (as you buy something that is protected and want to play it on hardware that does not support the protection scheme). Converting to a format that does work should never be illegal (even if it removes the DRM) - you have bought the media, so you should be able to use it anywhere (as long as you don't sell it). Don't penalise the consumer, go after the pirates (and that does not mean all file sharers, only those that share on a big scale).

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    TommyCarlier wrote:
    Have you read the article?  It states that the quality of JPEG is not sufficient for professional photographers.


    Professional photographers don't use compression; they shoot in RAW format.

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    Cairo wrote:
    Professional photographers don't use compression; they shoot in RAW format.

    Mostly just because of HDR, which that WMPhoto format will offer, too.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    TommyCarlier wrote:
    Have you read the article? It's primarily for devices (printers, scanners, cameras). It states that the quality of JPEG is not sufficient for professional photographers. Windows Media Photo offers better quality with higher compression. It also offers possibilities for manipulating the picture without having to re-encode it (like rotations).


    There is no way I'd buy a scanner that only saves to Microsoft's bástardised JPEG2000 format.

    a) Decent printers use a Page Definition Language (PostScript, etc) and send images as bitmaps, only lower-end "consumer grade" printers (in my experience) would composite the page as a bitmap and send it to the printer

    b) Scanners scan in a nice 48-bit raw bitmap with color correction information straight into Photoshop, no problems there

    c) Professional cameras use their own propreity RAW formats, most of which are already read by Photoshop fine

    And whatever "manipulations" the format supports are probably very limited (nothing like Apple's Aperture's history stack feature), although I can see the advantage of metadata-based rotation.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Tom Servo wrote:
    Cairo wrote:Professional photographers don't use compression; they shoot in RAW format.

    Mostly just because of HDR, which that WMPhoto format will offer, too.


    HDR has zilch to do with it, WMPhoto uses a lossy compression algorithm, which renders it useless to professional photographers.

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    W3bbo wrote:
    HDR has zilch to do with it, WMPhoto uses a lossy compression algorithm, which renders it useless to professional photographers.

    It has a lot to do with it, because RAW format has a high dynamic range and allows photographers to re-expose the image on load. JPEG doesn't offer HDR, while WMPhoto does.

    And unless you turn up your compression ratio up like hell, even JPEG will give you no noticable artifacts, especially when dealing with high resolutions, since the blocks are fixed size. Having a HDR-capable format with better compression will give you the ability for re-exposure while saving some space. Just because it's better at compression, doesn't mean you have to jack up the ratio, but instead increase the quality at same filesize.

    Also, I'm sure that professional photographers would like to shoot more pictures between changing of memory cards, especially with the amounts of data generated by 8-11 megapixel cameras.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    It's a nice new way, but if the thing is not open they won't get much support... And it will take time, as people use the current hardware as long as they think it fits the requirements.

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    Tom Servo wrote:
    W3bbo wrote:HDR has zilch to do with it, WMPhoto uses a lossy compression algorithm, which renders it useless to professional photographers.

    It has a lot to do with it, because RAW format has a high dynamic range and allows photographers to re-expose the image on load. JPEG doesn't offer HDR, while WMPhoto does.


    It's not about HDR, it's about control. Shooting in JPEG means that the picture is "developed" by the camera, out of control of the photographer. RAW lets the photographer decide how a photo should be developed. RAW is also lossless. You keep panning that, but actual pro photographers seem to think it's important.


  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Cairo wrote:
    Tom Servo wrote:
    W3bbo wrote:HDR has zilch to do with it, WMPhoto uses a lossy compression algorithm, which renders it useless to professional photographers.

    It has a lot to do with it, because RAW format has a high dynamic range and allows photographers to re-expose the image on load. JPEG doesn't offer HDR, while WMPhoto does.


    It's not about HDR, it's about control. Shooting in JPEG means that the picture is "developed" by the camera, out of control of the photographer. RAW lets the photographer decide how a photo should be developed. RAW is also lossless. You keep panning that, but actual pro photographers seem to think it's important.


    Besides, don't some cameras GZip RAW files to save space anyway?

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    Cairo wrote:
    It's not about HDR, it's about control. Shooting in JPEG means that the picture is "developed" by the camera, out of control of the photographer.

    That is exactly HDR. RAW stores the complete dynamic range the CCD can do, which is higher than what JPEG does, thus HDR.

    HDR isn't a term just for some 3D rendering thing.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I know a photographer and he uses a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II with x80 4 GB Compact Flash cards - stored in RAW format of course. He isn't online right now, but later on I'll ask him if he would move formats (or want to move formats).

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    Tom Servo wrote:
    Cairo wrote:It's not about HDR, it's about control. Shooting in JPEG means that the picture is "developed" by the camera, out of control of the photographer.

    That is exactly HDR. RAW stores the complete dynamic range the CCD can do, which is higher than what JPEG does, thus HDR.

    HDR isn't a term just for some 3D rendering thing.


    Neither is it what you think it is. Smiley HDR doesn't mean "the CCD or file format records a higher dynamic range". It's a special post-processing technique for combining multiple exposures of one scene into a final result that has greater detail, perceptually, than the indivdual source materials. HDR images are not faithful reproductions of what the camera sees. They are created by intentionally and artificially altering what the camera records.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.