Microsoft's JPEG Replacement

[dipdude]

Microsoft envisions Windows Media Photo as the replacement for JPEGs

What do you do when you feel that a current standard isn't good enough? You create your own. Microsoft has been talking up its new Windows Media Photo image format to take the place of the ubiquitous JPEG image. Windows Media Photo imaging will be natively supported by Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista operating system and will be back ported to Windows XP.

Considering that most digital cameras have the ability to output images in JPEG format, Microsoft has been in talks with all the major digital camera manufacturers and industry leaders to make them see the light with Windows Media Photo. Microsoft program manager for Windows Media Photo Bill Crow explains that his company's new graphics format can offer better image quality at twice the 6:1 compression commonly used in today's digital cameras, "We can do it in half the size of a JPEG file." ZDNET reports:

The compression technology is also "smart"--it is possible to process only part of a huge, picture file to show a smaller version, Crow said. Additionally, Microsoft's new image format allows such things as rotating the image without the need to decode it and subsequently encode it again, he said...Yet, success will depend on adoption, Wells said. Microsoft will need to get players such as Adobe Systems and Apple Computer on board to win over the graphics professionals, he noted. A major unknown is licensing, which Microsoft has not yet addressed. "Licensing can kill this," Wells said.

While Windows Media Photo sounds like a great replacement for JPEG, the key here is industry-wide support. If Microsoft can't grab some major players on the hardware and software side of things, Windows Media Photo may die a miserable death. Microsoft has a lot of lobbying to do if it wants to displace JPEG -- having the better technology just isn't enough.

 

[tracerbullet]

There's a long way to go. There's still JPEG2000 waiting in the line. Besides, it isn't the size that's important. Jpeg files have pretty much kept the file size down. It's quality that's more important. If more quality could be thrown into the file while keeping the size down, that'd be neat.

 

[Spacescreamer]

this reminded abt the founder of the clothesline for kids.. lil Tomatoes ..

the lady cudnt locate good enuf clother for her kids.. and so she went ahead and founded her own chain ..

 

[Chaos]

^^This is based on Rico Malvar's awesome PTC image codec. Search ACM Siggraph archives if u want the paper or look here.
Rico Malvar

Well some of my current work is based on this and lemme tell you without bias... it blows away JPEG2k in quality and compression ratios my a large large margin.

 

[Renegade]

There's a long way to go. There's still JPEG2000 waiting in the line. Besides, it isn't the size that's important. Jpeg files have pretty much kept the file size down. It's quality that's more important. If more quality could be thrown into the file while keeping the size down, that'd be neat.

Arent you saying the obvious and yet managing to contradict yourself. They are providing smaller file size and you want better quality at same file size. But once there is better compression then you automatically have better quality at same file size as before. :tongue:

 

[EnigmatriX]

why the hell compress the photo. most of the professional cameras have an option of shooting in raw mode capturing the highest details possible and people aren't worried about size any more but only quality. This is just the begining of another format war i suppose.

 

[Chaos]

^^Size aint an issue for consumer cameras. But once you go to the DSLR domain, when capturing at 3-5fps, 8MP or higher uncompressed files become a bottleneck for the I/O subsystem. There's no way they can be written that fast onto a CF Card.

 

[Haste]

why the hell compress the photo. most of the professional cameras have an option of shooting in raw mode capturing the highest details possible and people aren't worried about size any more but only quality. This is just the begining of another format war i suppose.

For general use, if we don't compress photos, the storage requirements for pics. will shoot up astronomically, filling u'r camera's memory in no time and it would take painfully long time to open up any websites(especially for one with photos hyeah: ).

For example, a simple image with res. 1024x768 and 24-Bit Colours uncompressed would take up about 2.25MB while compressed JPEG size for the same image would be about 225KB's :cool2:

 

[Techie#1]

..& i say...i get my RAW & TIFF(uncompressed or even LZW) file sizes on my DSLR @15-25MBs!

How much can u use that stuff on daily usage?

 

[tracerbullet]

Arent you saying the obvious and yet managing to contradict yourself. They are providing smaller file size and you want better quality at same file size. But once there is better compression then you automatically have better quality at same file size as before. :tongue:

What I meant to say was: Why promote the new standard with mindless marketting like "We can do it in half the size of a JPEG file." What should be stressed on is quality not size, though both lead in the same direction. It's a matter of focus. I'm not just arguing over semantics. Frankly, most of the technology industry seems to suffer from a lack of focus.