Windows alternative to JPEG

[reuber1]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1968160,00.asp

Not content to take on PDF and PostScript with Windows, Microsoft now also is setting its sights on going head-to-head with the JPEG imaging standard.

Microsoft introduced on May 24 at WinHEC (the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference) here its proposed image-compression file-format specification, which it is calling "Windows Media Photo."

During a session on Windows Media Photo, Bill Crow, principal program manager with Microsoft's Digital Media Division, described some of the characteristics it plans to support with the fledgling spec.

Windows Media Photo will allow users to correct, render and print photos in half the size a comparable JPEG requires, Crow said. As a result, images will retain more shadow and highlight detail, even when sent via e-mail, instant-messaging and other communications channels; and will require significantly less space for storage, he told WinHEC attendees.

"While the half the size of a JPG is interesting, it's largely irrelevant in my opinion," blogged Thomas Hawk, a San Francisco-based digital media enthusiast and author of the "Digital Media" blog.

[steve-o]

I agree with Hawk. Microsoft's biggest problem is that they try and sell new technology on its technical merits. People don't care about "under the covers" benefits.

Plus with storage being a non issue and most people having broadband, file size consideration as a standalone benefit is indeed irrelevant.

Although, maybe some of the print/prepress folks can offer some benefits of smaller image file sizes?

-Steve

[idaho]

Microshaft just has to have their grubby little paws in EVERYTHING. I hate them, I hate them, I hate them!!!

[Craig B]

Microshaft just has to have their grubby little paws in EVERYTHING. I hate them, I hate them, I hate them!!!

Yup, they suck alright.

[rickself]

And the name of this exclusive conference was WinHEC...

how bout What-the-HEC

or Lose-HEC

[chris_bcn]

it's so easy to jump on the I hate Microsoft abnd wagon. When they do try to innovate they still get jumped on.

For web design, the idea of a format that is half the size of a jpeg for photos could be a real boon. With Ajax becoming more popular, and libraries coming in at 100kb + for the more complex functions, then something has to give. The jpeg format is not the greates t compression, and I think it's interesting that someone is coming up with a new approach. Even with DSL file size is a real issue and somehitng evrey web designer needs to think about. NOt so much in print of course, but is jpeg that common a format in print? I wouldn't have thought it would print too well after a lossy jpeg compression

Microsoft annoy me as much as the next person, but the irational hatred is just plain ridiculous. It's as annoying as the automatic sycophantic fawning whenever Apple comes out with something.

Had this been Apple, then the comments would have been very different I reckon

[PrintDriver]

jpeg isn't a print format. Nor will this be. If the compression isn't as lossy as jpeg (remains to be seen) then stock houses that send larger images compressed once to jpg might be obliged to change over. I hate getting jpg files from stock houses. You never know...

I see your point about using it for web. As long as all browsers can support it.

[chris_bcn]

that of course will be the problem. It depends if all the browsers support it or just IE. If it's just IE it's going to be a bit annoying to say the least. Conditional comments mean we could direct it at just IE if we wanted.

Sigh! When will all browsers behave in the same way - drives you bloody mad

[Rocketpig]

Had this been Apple, then the comments would have been very different I reckon

Nah, I'd still dislike it.

I prefer standards to be controlled by independent third parties as much as possible.

Though I'll give kudos to MS for coming up with the standard if it lives up to its promises.

[ecsyle]

yeah, this will totally work. Like wma killed mp3...

oh wait...

If apple did it, it would probably be really good :(
And only supported on apple machines.
And no one would use it.

[emmerse]

I just think its funny everyone will be calling it WiMP.

"did you get that wimp I sent?... no? Oh it wasn't a very high quality wimp? help me out here, I haven't dealt with a lot of wimps before."

[SurfPark]

The problem is that the need for this isn't really there. They're not trying to get the professional photographer market because they tend to work with RAW image formats with no compression.

If WinHEC intends to replace the jpeg, it will need to offer something more than smaller file sizes. While there are needs for a good compression format, they need to bring something else to the table here to make it worth the switch. With such great compression, could they offer REALLY high-def images the same size at jpegs?

Personally speaking, I think this is just another attempt to DRM images. We'll have to download special keys to view WinHec files and so on. I can picture Microsoft opening up a Corbis or Flickr clone and trying to push this format. All of a sudden we'll need approval to even look at photos or print them.

[PrintDriver]

Uh...Gates already owns Corbis...

[panzer]

exactly

[ecsyle]

Would DRM for your images be a bad thing?

[shadepics]

Surely they could be pressing this for the mobile market? Download speeds are increasing, but a reduction in file sizes would give it a boost. Im all for it providing it does what they're claiming...

[Broacher]

There have been so many other lossy image compression formats over the years since JPG came out that over better compression and other goodies, but like so many other things-- when technical advantage meets marketing reality, the result is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Anyone remember wavelet (WI) compression? Corel tried to launch this one out back in the days when file size WAS a much bigger priority. The main weakness with that scheme seemed to be speed-- but now that was also a function of the older technology. And many more along the 'fractal' approach have been introduced, some even compatible (to a degree) with the JPG compression/decompression standards. But again, it's all who is big enough to really control the format standards.

And Gates understands this better than most-- having built his early empire on the licensing of the DOS standard 'cash cow'. Adobe has also gained much of it's dominance on the fact that PDF evolved out of EPS and postscript-- which they held the keys to for so long-- and the out-of-pocket investment in the really expensive firmware of so many prepress departments. There's real cash to be milked in format standard ownership-- or even perceived ownership, provided your big enough to defend and control them. And one of the most effective ways to protect a public format is to spread fear about the competition's interpretation of the standards, or to build in proprietary backdoors into the format prior to public release to help maintain your feature advantage. I think Adobe has done and continues to do that with PDF.

As for Apple -- don't they also own a few proprietary formats themselves that they've gone to court to protect?

[Ned]

The only format I use is NEDpic (*.ned). It's the best file format in the world! Takes up virtually no space, supports 16-bit, alpha channels, clipping paths, transparency, layers, even vector artwork, including gradients and blends, and up to 24 fps animation, in either vector or raster form! I just don't understand why all my clients keep coming back with 'I can't open that file you sent me.."

[shadepics]

lol ned :D