Log in

View Full Version : Microsoft Debuts Windows Media Photo, a JPEG Replacement


Jason Dunn
05-25-2006, 08:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6076650.html?part=rss&tag=6076650&subj=news' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6076650.html?part=rss&tag=6076650&subj=news</a><br /><br /></div><i>"If it is up to Microsoft, the omnipresent JPEG image format will be replaced by Windows Media Photo. The software maker detailed the new image format Wednesday at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference here. Windows Media Photo will be supported in Windows Vista and also be made available for Windows XP, Bill Crow, program manager for Windows Media Photo said in a presentation. "One of the biggest reasons people upgrade their PCs is digital photos," Crow said, noting that Microsoft has been in contact with printer makers, digital camera companies and other unnamed industry partners while working on Windows Media Photo. Microsoft touts managing "digital memories" as one of the key attributes of XP successor Vista. In his presentation, Crow showed an image with 24:1 compression that visibly contained more detail in the Windows Media Photo format than the JPEG and JPEG 2000 formats compressed at the same level."</i><br /><br />I don't often bet against Microsoft when they make moves into new markets, because they have such staying power, but this move strikes me as foolhardy. Didn't they see what happened to JPEG2000? Utter failure. I'd like to learn more about WMP (uh-oh, that acronym is <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/mp10/default.aspx">already being used</a>), but based on this C|NET article, there's just not enough measurable improvement over JPEG to really catch on. Microsoft wants to see this format succeed because it will mean billions in licensing revenue, but if you're Canon or Nikon, you won't want to give Microsoft a single cent for a new format unless your customers are begging for a JPEG replacement - which I don't think they are. Microsoft's Windows Media Photo gambit will fail - by this time next year it will be a distant memory.

Felix Torres
05-25-2006, 08:12 PM
Microsoft's Windows Media Photo gambit will fail - by this time next year it will be a distant memory.

Maybe...
...probably...

But...
The issue here isn't compression rate but image quality. MS has been talking to the camera folks and apparently were not roasted so there may be something here. Looking at the spec description it sounds like they're doing more than just capturing a bitmap; the spec might actually be a form of compressed RAW file. And who knows what the licensing rates are like anyway.
They might just give the stuff away for free since it seems to be just a spinoff of WMV to start with.

It does seem to be rather late in the game to be promoting a new compressed image format so it is really odd for MS to be doing this.

So odd that I suspect there's more here than meets the eye...
(Are there any ongoing JPEG lawsuits out there?)

Vincent Ferrari
05-25-2006, 08:22 PM
The nice thing about standards is there are so many to pick from :-)

Honestly, I see no point in this. There's at least one other file type I can think of that's smaller, more efficient, and offers better quality... PNG...

Know any cameras shooting PNG?

Exactly.

Jason Eaton
05-25-2006, 08:34 PM
So odd that I suspect there's more here than meets the eye...
(Are there any ongoing JPEG lawsuits out there?)

Funny you should mention that...
MS faces JPG Patent Lawsuit (http://www.out-law.com/page-5606)

Felix Torres
05-25-2006, 09:11 PM
So odd that I suspect there's more here than meets the eye...
(Are there any ongoing JPEG lawsuits out there?)

Funny you should mention that...
MS faces JPG Patent Lawsuit (http://www.out-law.com/page-5606)

In other words; there is a reason for the "crazy" move.

I thought the Forgent suits were over; guess not...
And filed in lawsuit county, no less.

MS may find takers for the spec, then.

Jason Dunn
05-26-2006, 01:01 AM
The issue here isn't compression rate but image quality.

The look of an image comes from the camera sensor and glass. The compression comes from the file format used. The article talks about compression artifacts, blah blah, meaning this really is about compression, not better white balance or somehow improving the image.

Lee Yuan Sheng
05-26-2006, 02:31 AM
What Jason said. Anyone with the slightest quibble with JPEG will shoot in RAW.

Plus JPEG's compression is actually quite good. In today's high-bandwidth and cheap storage environment, extremely good compression (vs good compression) isn't the only thing a new format should bank on. It needs to do more, and as Jason has pointed out, JPEG2000 never took off, so I don't see this format taking off either.

Jason Dunn
05-26-2006, 05:22 PM
Funny you should mention that...
MS faces JPG Patent Lawsuit (http://www.out-law.com/page-5606)

Yeah, I didn't know about that lawsuit when I wrote my post, so maybe it's
not as grim as I think it is...but the problem is support of the format.
JPEGs are supported by every camera, every modern DVD player, ever media server, every PDA, every phone...so many things! It took Microsoft YEARS to get WMA support into just a small fraction of devices that support JPEG today, so it will take them years to get WMP support into all the devices,
and will the lawsuits wait for five years while Microsoft ramps up their
efforts?

klinux
05-26-2006, 08:53 PM
Forget patent dismissed: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060526105754880