It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Microsoft to replace JPEG with 'HD Photo'

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:52 PM

The Joint Photographic Experts Group, which created the ubiquitous JPEG image file format, is impressed enough by HD Photo to have initiated the process of making it an industry standard under the name "JPEG XR."

HD Photo is designed to combine the convenience and space efficiency of the aging JPEG format with much of the flexibility of RAW images. By retaining and decoding data in ways that a JPEG can't, this new file type could facilitate a broad range of improvements and innovations in the way we shoot, edit, print, and display images.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Last year Microsoft renamed its 'Windows Media Photo' to 'HD Photo.' No one really knew why, but now its clear, huh? A bid to standardize the industry with their own file formats!

IMHO, it doesn't sound all bad. I can't find any technical details on the HD Photo format, but from what I read it sounds good. RAW file formats are literally the 1's and 0's off the CCD once you take a digital picture. Pro-photogs use RAW because you can do all sorts of things to the image that JPEG doesn't allow, such as setting the white balance after the picture has been taken.
If a normal format could incorporate even some of the features RAW has, then I'm all for it. Also, they don't mention if HD Photo is a lossy file format. JPEG is, which means every time you modify and then save a JPEG photo, the image quality is degraded. I'd guess that it would be lossy.

But one thing I find funny is the picture that comes with the article:

Look at the end of the file name: .jpg
Oh yeah, HD Photo looks soooo much better compared to the crappy old JPEG photo next to it . . . rofl

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:01 PM
Wow...that is quite a difference...even I can see it
Normally I can't detect the difference..or maybe I just don't normally care

Very nice

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 09:06 PM
Well to be hoenst, that jpeg used in the comparison looks very low quality.
Im looking at some jpegs now and they look MUCH crisper and cleaner.
Why change it?

JPEG is so universal, its so compact and does the trick.

Microsoft to me, seem to be trying too hard at the moment.

IE Vista.
Yes, vista is good.. but there was such a time lapse from XP To vista, where XP became the flagship EVERYONE had... it seems such a difficult task for vista to be able to compensate for all that time of software, hardware and so forth made specifically for XP.

If it aint broke dont force people to use the fixed version, if they change from JPEG to HD then ultimately in years to come camera's wil default too.
JPEG To date has had minimal security breaches in terms of viruses.. why complicate things with a new source?

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 09:14 PM
Pretty sure I heard they were dumping vista due to lack of interest/sales. Looking out for an xp service pack 3 later this year..

I must admit though. Jpegs leave a lot to be desired and are responsible for quite a few unexplained 'sightings/ufos'

Bring back good old analog pikkies.. They tried and failed replacing analog synths

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 09:44 PM
For a while, people were heralding PNG as the new photo compression messiah. For me, jpg works, if it ain't broke why change it. And those comparison photos were far too small in resolution to be practical. I want to see 'big' pictures to see HD Photo in full flight. 1600x1200. 1920x1200. Etc.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:24 AM
That does look much better.

The only time JPEGS are really useful IMO is when you have very large (dimensions and file size)
pictures, otherwise JPEGS pretty much suck for me.

On a side note, all except my most massive pictures are in PNG formats.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:19 AM

Originally posted by AGENT_T
Pretty sure I heard they were dumping vista due to lack of interest/sales. Looking out for an xp service pack 3 later this year..

Where did you hear this??

Or are you being a smart??

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:59 AM
That photo that comes with the article is NOT HD Photo. If it were, your browser wouldn't display it because it is not able to support it yet. What they are showing you is pure marketing.

They can't show you the real difference so they show you a pretend sample of a horrible image and a good one. Just like when you see a commercial for an HDTV on a regular television.

They can't show you the absolute quality of an HDTV on a normal TV. So they must resort to relative comparisons in which they show a horrible "simulated picture" next to a normal television picture and convince you that the horrible "simulated image" is what you currently have. Same thing is going on here.

I don't know why they don't standardize my "VOX Photo" format. It is easily 33.6% more better than Microsoft's "HD Photo."

See for yourself:

But I will admit that a high-compression high dynamic range (HDR) image format is sorely needed. The existing HDR formats tend to be mostly non-lossy which is useless for 90% of image uses because they end up huge (just a little better than RAW images). I just hope this format isn't covered by any patents.


[edit on 8.5.2007 by Voxel]

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by AGENT_T
Looking out for an xp service pack 3 later this year..

It was supposed to have been released already, but apparently microsoft didn't want to release it in the same year as they released a new operating system.

Microsoft has quietly pushed back the third official service pack for Windows XP to 2008. Whether or not this is an issue seems to be one for debate.

This isn't the only service pack that's pulling a Godot, according to Microsoft's Service Pack Road Map. The second service pack for Windows Server 2003 has been pushed back from late 2006 to Q1 of 2007.

Service Pack 3 for Windows XP was long-believed to be planned for mid- to late-2007 release. It was largely going to be a collection of cumulative fixes and patches, IE 7, and .Net 3.0, although its contents were still up in the air.


posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 02:29 AM
Also, I want to add that no one (not even Microsoft) can replace a file format of any type. The most they can do is augment the current JPEG standard (there is actually more than one file format under the umbrella of JPEG) with another type for another specific use.

In case you are wondering, there are at least 3 different JPEG file formats already. Going off the top of my head:

JFIF - This is what everyone and their mum thinks of as "JPG." Compression is based on "Discrete Cosine Transform" (DCT) technique. Has up to 3 channels (L,Cr,Cb.)

JPEG2000 - This is a new file format based on a different compression technique (wavelets vs DCT) and allows up to 256 channels.

JPEG-LS - This is a lossless compression format that is pretty much unused because it has worse compression than PNG (which is also lossless) in many cases.

So HD Photo would simply become the next format under the JPEG scheme. HD Photo also uses a DCT type of compression algorithm but offers more depth per channel than JPEG.

If you don't know what all that means then the new file format really doesn't effect you or offer anything new.


posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 02:38 AM

Originally posted by iori_komei
That does look much better.

The only time JPEGS are really useful IMO is when you have very large (dimensions and file size)
pictures, otherwise JPEGS pretty much suck for me.

On a side note, all except my most massive pictures are in PNG formats.

(and other similar thoughts)

You can pretty much ignore these "comparisons." When compressing to jpeg, you can define a quality, and at its highest, the compression isn't noticeable at all. PNG, being lossless, is far too large for anything you don't need to scale or work with. Otherwise, JPEG looks the same and is far more compact. There's no reason not to use it, especially over the internet.

And Microsoft has no say in whether or not a format will magically stop being used. The most they could do is make it unsupported by Internet Explorer - a move that would make everyone stop using it (as nearly all web sites use jpeg).

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Johnmike]

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:08 AM

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

..Or are you being a smart??

Me?? smart?? Never!!

Check out implosions link.
I, and loads of others, have for the lifetime of XP invested quite a few thousand in music studios that run well on XP...Finally

When you consider how many thousands of others that have done the same in an all in one PC/Music production/Soft synth/Mastering setup.
Companies such as Steinberg/Native instruments/TC Electronics etc are even now reluctant to change format.
Thats a heck of a lot of capital tied up in what is probably the first pc based sytem that gets the job done(Mac has had it right for a while with pro tools.)

They will never stop developing for Xp because they know it's too reliable now(about time)

Vista is the reason I never invested in a new laptop.
My friend who is a programmer is building his own..Still gonna use XP too
The only issue about xp is it's problems with installing ddr memory above 3gb.
To be fixed in service pack 3. : )

Back on topic.. I prefer using RAW images form my Canon anyhoo.
I,m pretty sure that 7mb was supposed to be the resolution that equalled good old REAL film.
Can anyone reccomend a really hot digital SLR they've used or bought.. Cheers.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:29 AM
this is madness

the hd image has completly different gamma and colors etc
so theyr sayng that theyr format can fix the face colors on the second pic and clean sharpen and fix the ballon guy in the first pic?
quality is one thing....but this is lol....cant believe this marketing trick^^
and yea it was funny hd image with jpg format ahahahaha

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:36 AM

Originally posted by AGENT_T
I, and loads of others, have for the lifetime of XP invested quite a few thousand in music studios that run well on XP...Finally

I'm running XP pro and I certainly wont be changing to Vista anytime soon. This machine does everything I need, and does it well. I also own a cheap laptop that runs Vista, and it's just horrible, almost as nasty as a Mac [but not quite...].

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Implosion
.. almost as nasty as a Mac [but not quite...].

I remember Mike Lindup(Level 42) Having to call a halt to a show coz he couldn't get his blummin mac to work on stage

I still have nightmares about the same scenario .yukk

I,ve tried a few plugins with photoshop that get the job done with jpegs. But all involve increasing the resolution and size of the image.
It just seems unavoidable.. If you want a good image you've gotta sacrifice a wee bit of memory to achive it. AUTOEYE is cool

Can't get the hang of GIFS. The colour just fades when i try to add motion

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:51 AM

At a high level, HD Photo's design is very similar to JPEG: the source image is optionally converted to a luma-chroma colorspace, the chroma planes are optionally subsampled, each plane is divided into fixed-size blocks, the blocks are transformed into the frequency domain, and the frequency coefficients are quantized and entropy coded. Major differences include the following.....:

Oh For Gawds Sake..
Just take the blummin picture will you!!!!

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 05:10 AM
whats the best format for creating a desktop wallpaper 1280x1024 guis?

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:22 AM
All theyve done is degrade a jpeg and then show it against a non degraded jpeg. It has nothing to do with the new format.

Thats about as useful as a TV manufacturer trying to show you how clear HD TV is on your old SD TV.

The only way to truly judge the difference is to take a lossless image and convert is to both jpeg and HDP. If its done well, I cannot tell the difference between a bmp and jpeg.

This will die, ogg is superior to mp3 but mp3 is so widespread that it will never overtake it. Remember how MS said wma was so superior to mp3 too, yeah everyone adopted that too, didnt they?

new topics

top topics


log in