OSNews

PNG can't compare to JPEG, let alone Windows Media Photo, for image compression where some loss is acceptable.

As it happens, I don't really care. I am absolutely sick of proprietary media formats popping up anywhere... Not to sound like a FOSS fanatic or anything, but if a file format of some kind is going to enter widespread use, it should be *required* to be an open standard. A vendor forcing people to use their application only on their platform only to view a commonly used file is being unfair to other companies, unfair to the market, and unfair to users, including its own customers.

MS provides the specification for the image format. What more do you need?

Guarantees that:
The freely available specs (if they ever emerged) would remain completely open.
The specs are complete are workable.
The specs won't be altered and manipulated to advance the interests of Microsoft while at the same time disadvantaging their competitors.
Microsoft won't abuse their monopoly position to force their file format onto groups and companies who would not adopt it by choice.

There's a start.

"MS provides the specification for the image format. What more do you need?"

Any related patents owned by Microsoft (and anyone else) transfered to a non-profit standards organization that we can all trust.

The good side of patents is that they [should] describe the invention in detail, the bad is that you can't implement any of those details for as long as the patent is valid, unless you license it, at whatever price the patent-holder asks. This is a very real threat to non-commercial operating systems.

MS provides a specification for MS Word, also, but there are severe limitations on whaty one can actually DO with the information they provide.

Ummm... Right. Sorry, that was me getting carried away and commenting without reading the article.

(FWIW I do think we have something to be annoyed about concerning the proliferation of RealMedia videos, but that is another matter.

PNG can't compare to JPEG, let alone Windows Media Photo, for image compression where some loss is acceptable.

Really??? Based on what? I'm using a lot of PNG for my drawings. It has proven as better (quality-size wise) than JPEG for me and it has Alpha channel which is seriously lacking in JPEG.

The only problem I had so far is Windows support where you need thrird party software to display it as it should be. All other OSes handle PNG natively.

Wouldn't say anything if you would mention JPEG2000 (this one is much better), but that one is still not out.

Based on photographs. Drawings are certainly going to compress better using PNG, especially PNG-8, because JPEG optimizes on gradients. PNG-8 compresses even better than GIF in a lot of cases. JPEG at its highest quality setting compresses to roughly 60 percent (of the file size) of non-interlaced PNG-24.

Personally, I prefer using PNG for everything, mainly because I am familiar with the algorithms used and the zlib codebase, but also because I like using the alpha channel from time to time and I don't like visual artifacts.

Based on photographs

Ok. Tested and you're right. As I said I do a lot of drawings, no photographs.

Yes, size of JPEG on photo is more acceptable while not losing quality, compltely different results on drawings. But just as you said, it won't stop me to ignore it in the future as I did it in the past. PNG is still the that rocks mothers ass.

Read my lips:

JPEG2000

This is the new version of JPEG that can compress at 1:20 with the same quality as the standard JPEG at 1:5. There were a lot of patent worries, but most of these have been fixed. It's supported natively in Mac OS X and there is a free plugin for Firefox here: http://www.morgan-multimedia.com/JPEG2000/mozilla_plugin.htm

There is also talk of incorporating it into Firefox 2.0: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla2:ImageLib#JPEG2000

It offers both lossy and lossless compression, and because it's based on Wavelet technology, the compression artifacts aren't as noticeable as with standard JPEG.

All in all, it's a pity no-one's incorporated it, particularly in digital cameras.

Perhaps this move, on the part of Microsoft, will encourage projects like FF to encorporate JPEG200.

Interesting,

MSs new closed format alledges to be about twice as good as the original JPEG standard. Comparing that to the fact that it is well established that JPEG2000 can compress about 4 times better than the original JPEG with actually better image quality, and the fact that it can be openly implemented on any system, then I'm sure to bet my money on JPEG2000.

So the international JPEG2000 ISO standard can provide today much better compression and quality compared to what Microsoft is alledging to be able to provide with their own closed proprietary WMP (Windows Media Photo) image format.

Links:
http://www.jpeg2000info.com/
http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000/

...and if we want video, then we have MPEG4 (ISO/IEC 14496), also greatly improved upon over MPEG2 and still an open ISO standard!

Furthermore, we have H.264, the MPEG-4 Part 10, or AVC (Advanced Video Coding).

And the previously mentioned MS proposed format beating JPEG2000 open standard of today is also known as ISO/IEC 15444.

Further reading:
MPEG4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG4
MPEG4 & MPEG7: http://www.m4if.org/resources/mpeg4userfaq.php
H264: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
JPEG2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

extra: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/mpeg4/

you need windows vista and internet explorer to see pictures on this website warnings

Oh boy oh boy... Well, that'll solve the problems with high load times due to bloated pages

i hope that all the annoying adds only works with MSIE

Anyone who criticises this move is a terrorist.

Thank god MS are ready to act again for the interests of consumers who are constantly baffled by choice.

No, because on the Get Ready For Vista page, you cannot Download and run the .msi

Using their own screwed up formats, Microsoft has, by default, lost OS X and Linux users from upgrading to Vista. There is simply no way to check if their machines can run it.

As for a replacement for jpg ? Choke my chicken Microsoft, why should I buy in to your shitty format, when there is a STANDARD one that the whole world uses ?

This is one more reason for you all to stand up and shout, at the top of your voices... "f--k You, Microsoft"

What am I missing here?

What's to miss? They're claiming that they're half the size of the JPEG with better quality.

And how can the JPEG algorithm be *so* bad that it's beatable by a factor 2?

Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe it isn't that the JPEG algorithm is "so bad". Maybe WMPhoto is simply technologically superior. After all, JPEG is pretty damned old.

I say no way.

Based on what? Pure conjecture? And you think that MS would have made such claims knowing that it would be readily possible to prove/disprove their claims?

Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe it isn't that the JPEG algorithm is "so bad". Maybe WMPhoto is simply technologically superior. After all, JPEG is pretty damned old.

So is C++. So is GIF. So is MP3. So is gzip. JPEG being old is not an argument against it.

>I say no way.

Based on what? Pure conjecture? And you think that MS would have made such claims knowing that it would be readily possible to prove/disprove their claims?

Yes, in fact I would assume that, since the quality of an image is completely subjective and dependant on the eyes viewing it - especially with lossy formats. You could write a major about "the interpreted quality of an image".

How would you say WMA compares to MP3? I wouldn't dare say a word about it. But this article does and may emphasize my bold claim that this is in fact marketing bogus:

http://ekei.com/audio/

So is C++. So is GIF. So is MP3. So is gzip. JPEG being old is not an argument against it.

My point wasn't that old = bad. My point was that technology tends to evolve and get better over time.

Yes, in fact I would assume that, since the quality of an image is completely subjective and dependant on the eyes viewing it - especially with lossy formats. You could write a major about "the interpreted quality of an image".

No, image quality isn't entirely subjective. It's quite possible to take decompressed bits from codec A and decompressed bits from codec B -- and compare those bits to the original uncompressed image. Yes, there are a wide number of factors for comparison. But not all of those factors are subjective.

How would you say WMA compares to MP3? I wouldn't dare say a word about it. But this article does and may emphasize my bold claim that this is in fact marketing bogus:

WMA is provably better than MP3 -- at least, for average to lower bit-depths.

WMA is provably better than MP3 -- at least, for average to lower bit-depths.

I hear your point and I agree that there are provable differences. But I would expect MS to be relying on the un-provable/subjective part to sustain their claims. And I think that there will be an "-- at least, for..." in the final conclusion of this format as well as the WMA. Twice as good as JPEG is too good.

but WMA is not agreed upon by multiple entities, only Microsoft. Why not use AAC [part of the mpeg-4 spec]. .... much more 'open' that microsoft and no one entity has full control.

Perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe it isn't that the JPEG algorithm is "so bad". Maybe WMPhoto is simply technologically superior. After all, JPEG is pretty damned old.

So is GIF.
PNG is better.

So is MP3.
Vorbis is better.

So is gzip.
bzip2 is better.

So is C++.
There's a hole with no bottom.

Edited 2006-05-25 22:24

Vorbis is better? Please state how.

Don't say because it's Free, that doesn't make it better.

//Vorbis is better? Please state how. //

http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Best_Compressed_Audio_For...
"As a result of these tests, this document assumes that Ogg Vorbis is the best so-far in audio compression, based on tests listed."

http://www.teqnilogik.com/tutorials/audio_formats.htm
"WMA is Microsoft's answer to MP3. Exclusive to the Windows platform, WMA offers better sounding files at lower bit rates but currently WMA is not the best audio format. Better tuned MP3 encoders, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, and MusePack all beat WMA's quality at 128kbps and above."

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=116947
"Depends on the context

Best for screwing over the customer:
WMA/V w/ Napster's DRM system

Best for interopability and best overall:
MPEG Layer 3 (MP3)

Best for being a liberal
Ogg Vorbis

Best for preserving quality
FLAC"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ogg+Vorbis
"Uses various technologies to create audioquality comparable with mp3PRO at low bitrates and MP3 at high bitrates. Encodes and decodes fast. Available on many platforms. Opensource. Beats MP3 and WMA fair and square in terms of sound quality."

Nice parent post! +1 (Click above to see parent) "...AAC, Ogg Vorbis, and MusePack all beat WMA's quality at 128kbps and above.".

Edited 2006-05-26 08:45

Vorbis is better? Please state how.

Vorbis consistently fares better than MP3 in double-blind listening tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Listening_tests

Pretty much any of the newer formats (Ogg Vorbis, WMA, AAC etc) is better than MP3 when it comes to fidelity (at the same bitrate). The only good reason to use MP3 is compatibility.

The tests seem to state that vorbis can indeed be better!
Here is the most comprehensive listening test I seen...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465

That's cool. I have seen reports saying the same, but nobody tests against the actual fraunhoffer encoder which beats lame completely in terms of sound quality.

I wish I could see comparisons of WMA, Fraunhoffer MP3enc and vorbis.

I would have to disagree. FN encoder was better but now lame is better. See here...
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html

So is C++. So is GIF. So is MP3. So is gzip. JPEG being old is not an argument against it.

Java, PNG, OGG, BZip2?

"Based on what? Pure conjecture? And you think that MS would have made such claims knowing that it would be readily possible to prove/disprove their claims?"

The ease of disproving an inaccurate claim doesn't seem to change their willingness to make one.

Didn't Microsoft claim that WMA @ 64kbps was superior to MP3 @ 128kbps? From the listening tests I've seen, WMA Standard is actually worse than MP3 at the same bitrate, at least when a modern MP3 encoder is used. For example: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

I see no reason to expect this MS claim to be any more accurate.

Even if it is superior to JPG, personally I think JPG is good enough, and the last thing the web needs is a proprietary image format controlled by Microsoft.

I see no reason to expect this MS claim to be any more accurate.

Then you have nothing to worry about. People can easily run comparisons to test MS's assertions. That's the way that technology works: People don't simply accept marketing prognistications: They test them. I don't know anybody who deploys technology simply because a vendor claims it's better.

"Then you have nothing to worry about. People can easily run comparisons to test MS's assertions. That's the way that technology works: People don't simply accept marketing prognistications: They test them. I don't know anybody who deploys technology simply because a vendor claims it's better."

In my experience most people simply use the defaults and stick with whatever came with their PC. Look at how many people only use IE and never consider looking for a superior browser.

Another example is WMA, there are plenty of people who believe that it's significantly superior to MP3. I've seen the use of WMA recommended on various forums because "you can fit on twice as many songs on your player". Despite the listening test results (and how easily they could test it themselves), people accept Microsoft's claims and assume that newer=better.

Yeah, I have tried so many file types, starting with MP3, including WMA, and over time only OGG Vorbis has provided the kind of excellent quality that I cannot differentiate from directly playing my CDs.

At similar compression ratios, MP3 contain a lot of artefacts, WMA contains many or several artefacts depending on what type of music you have compressed, and with OGG Vorbis of similar compression values I cannot tell the difference from the original. OGG / Vorbis is excellent quality.

For those who haven't tried ogg I really recommend you start compressing and listening to music in that format.

Furthermore, as a bonus, you won't be tied to one platform or a subset of systems in the future.

Links:
http://www.vorbis.com/
http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/ ( http://www.xiph.org/ )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis

Edited 2006-05-26 08:32

Try latest aoTuV, even better than official version (1.1 is infact aoTuV beta 2 + some fixes)

http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm

Downloads here
http://vorbis.audiohq.de/content/downloads.php

Some fair points. We might have to wait for some thorough evaluation of the relative performance of this new file format.

Don't forget however, there are some open file formats which also claim succeed JPEG.

"And you think that MS would have made such claims knowing that it would be readily possible to prove/disprove their claims?"

I don't think that it's unreasonable to view the claims of Microsoft with skepticism.

yeah, like WMA ... which is same quality of an MP3 at half the size ... give me a break ...

" And how can the JPEG algorithm be *so* bad that it's beatable by a factor 2? "

Is that what you said when MPEG4 came out as a replacement for MPEG2?

The JPEG format is quite old in computer years. There has been lots of developments in compression technology. I'm at all suprised that MS (or anyone) could do better than JPEG.

Just look at the improvements in audio codecs. MP3 is old technology now compared to what Real, WMA and Ogg have out.

Well, MPEG4 isn't all that good.

In what way? MPEG-4 H.264 (AVC) is the only codec I've seen to handle HD video at decent file sizes. It's only limitation that I can see is that is has more stringent hardware requirements.

Plain old DCT based JPEG was improved significantly by atleast 2x or more by JPEG 2000 using Wavelets. Ofcourse it was standardized by the same people as JPEG so no worries. You don't hear about it much, I suspect its buried in several modern codecs, like Quicktime.

Before that it was Iterated Systems that had a much superior compression based on Fractals which at first seemed to have nothing in common with DCT or Wavelets. Today most students of these algorithms see them as a whole.

I did download the spec doc but under BeOS can only read raw text. Need to upgrade to Windows again.

If Microsoft puts the entire thing out in the open, code, algorithms, math with no restrictions or fees, I'd reckon it might have a chance with the way they shove things on the market. Otherwise NOT, NYET, NADA.

Except, it will never succeed.
Take porno for example. Can you honestly see Joe Porno taking down his webites, converting all his jpgs into another format and then putting it all up again ?

Nah

BTW - they might own your desktop... but only you are to blame for that.

Chances of all that happening? Slim to none. Especially in these days of massive flash ads and broadband Internet.

Nah. I disagree. MS owns the Windows client. If WMPhoto becomes the default image storage format, it's all over. The n00bs will all use it.

"Nah. I disagree. MS owns the Windows client. If WMPhoto becomes the default image storage format, it's all over. The n00bs will all use it."

Really? You think it's that simple? Because they already have their own audio format, and yet the average windows users still needs Real Player and possibly iTunes to play all formats, hear all streams. How is this different?

Really? You think it's that simple? Because they already have their own audio format, and yet the average windows users still needs Real Player and possibly iTunes to play all formats, hear all streams. How is this different?

Yeah, it IS that simple. MS has tremendous advantages in controlling Windows. The Windows client is the nexus for file-sharing. Until now, MS hasn't really had a defacto default image format (other than JPEG). If MS starts suggesting a default of WMPhoto in all of its applications, then most users will simply use those defaults without questioning them.

'Until now, MS hasn't really had a defacto default image format (other than JPEG).'

I'd be careful to qualify that statement. BMP has been the default image format on Windows for a long time.

Not unless there is application and hardware support. I don't see n00bs converting their whole photo collection just to save some space. Even if the camera client in Vista do so, I don't see any advantage in converting a lossy format in another.

Now go find me some JPEG2000 or DJVU files on the page of a commonly-used web site. Can't? That's because JPEG is good enough.

Show me a browser with J2k or DJVU support.
JPEG 2000 is not widely supported in present software due to the perceived danger of software patents on the mathematics of the compression method

What makes me angry is that if all the related apps on Windows start saving the image files in this 'Windows Media Photo' format as default (same happens with WMP, IE and other crap), this could turn into the most used format in just one or two years.

There's no need to be angry. MS published the WMPhoto image format spec. Consequently, it shouldn't be all that difficult for people to write their own viewers/editors/etc.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx

There's no need to be angry. MS published the WMPhoto image format spec. Consequently, it shouldn't be all that difficult for people to write their own viewers/editors/etc.

Quote from the license you must agree to before reading the spec (emphasis mine):

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, You and Microsoft agree as follows:

1. You may review these Materials only (a) as a reference to assist You in planning and designing Your product, service or technology ("Product") to interface with a Microsoft product, specification, service or technology ("Microsoft Product") as described in these Materials; and (b) to provide feedback on these Materials to Microsoft. All other rights are retained by Microsoft; this Agreement does not give You rights under any Microsoft patents. You may not (i) duplicate any part of these Materials, (ii) remove this Agreement or any notices from these Materials, or (iii) give any part of these Materials, or assign or otherwise provide Your rights under this Agreement, to anyone else.

So no, not a free format at all.

it doesn't cost you any money, so it is most definitely free.

That depends in which way you use "free".

Free as in technology I can use as I please.

OR

Free as in "I can't use it, but I don't have to pay for not being able to use it".

I always use free as in cost associated to the product.

But considering the limitation on the english language I can see where people have me mistaken. It's the same word, but I always capitalize Free(liberty) and keep free being cost associated.

Okay. I'll remember that.

But then you must remember that many people do not capitalize Free(liberty) when they are talking about freedom.

In Denmark we use the word "gratis" for your "free" while the Danish word for "free" (fri) usually is associated with freedom. The MIT-license is a "fri" license, in the sense of your Free(liberty).

In Danish "fri" usually means "without limitations". Languages are funny, huh?

They definitely are. I sometimes get really pedantic about the English language because it's abused so often. Some people use other languages to denote a difference (libre,gratis), which makes sense, but it doesn't help when it's just (F|f)ree. In the same sense, the christians use the upper case G in God when they are talking about their deity but lower case g when referring to some god in general.

Anyway, I didn't mean to troll, I just get caught up in language differences and sometimes forget that people aren't all native english here.

Are you serious or just trolling?

"Free" means much more than "it doesn't cost anything"

No I'm serious. Free and free are different in my mind

Yes, most PC users are that stupid... they just use whatever Microsoft throws at them and don't make the slightest effort to learn a bit about standards or other options.
-------

I'll use whatever tool to get the job done. If this new format can offer me better quality at less than JPG picture files, then I'll consider using it.

Does anyone know if this supports alpha transparencies? That would be HUGE for this new format. I'm sick and tired of JPG not supporting it, the limitations of GIF with 256 colors, and PNG and their larger file sizes. IMO, its really about time a better picture format suitable for the web was developed. I dont care who creates it.

yes it does support alpha channel and it also supports more than 32 bits per color and many other clever things. also it only relies on integer arithmetics with no division ops so it is very suitable for embedded devices, like cameras and other stuff.

i say microsoft has a winner watching the technological side. i would sure use this format myself.

now we should only see what is going to happen because of it being proprietary format and because of it coming from "evil" corporation.

PS sorry for my english

If you want anyone to take you seriously in this market sector then you will GIVE it away. No Licensing fees ever. Make the source code available so that it can be ported to other platforms and incorporated into lots of applications without fear.

Are you all ready to watch the pigs fly outta my ass ?

If the tech is superior, I'd definitely take a look.

Yeah, and always you want to turn this into a proprietary vs. open source thing. Course as a Mac user, I would have thought you'd find this somewhat problematic as well. Why don't think about that since you're having thoughts anyway?

I don't see a difference between proprietary and open-source -- I use what works best for my particular situation. If you can't compete feature-for-feature, or on quality, and instead have to resort to comparing ideologies, then you really can't compete.

I like my Macs. I don't care whether what they run is half-OSS/half-proprietary, full-OSS, or full-proprietary -- what counts is that using it is a painless and enjoyable experience. I'm not going to switch away any time soon because some F/OSS loons are pissed off that Apple won't open-source what they've worked on behind closed doors.

Almost there...

Open Source means the source is openly viewable and accessible, but what you can do with it depends on the license that you have agreed to.

Free means you can use the technology without limitations. Free means the freedom or liberty that the license permits, and has no relation to the cost or price. In this way, Free Software may be sold commercially at cost and supported by paid services.

There is a lot of code which is Open Source but at the same time is not Free Software. Whereas, as a subset, all Free Software must also be Open Source by nature.

Check the excellent link:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


There are a lot of people out there who try to confuse people by telling that Free Software is without cost and un-American. These people are either morons or intelligent people that tell lies trying to manipulate you for their own needs.
Free Software is big business and is a very competitive market, it produces great innovation and productivity increases.

Edited 2006-05-26 09:03

Ideologies don't make one difference to people who want to get the job done with the best tool available.

Give me one example where Apple's proprietary software limits me in some way. Really. Otherwise, you're just astroturfing. :-)

Take a look at our profiles, and let's see who the astroturfer is, Linux Is Poo.

Red herring.

You lose.

If this was a Ubuntu-promoted format, then is would be open source, and could be adopted by anyone. A mac user, or windows user can still use it, if those OS's chose to add it. Now when MS makes a format, it closes it down, so we will have to reverse engeneer it, and maybe we will get lucky and be able to read the file, and create one in 5 years, when the new format comes out.

The specifications are not open.

The specifications are accessible, but that does not qualify as open.

The license for seeing the specification does not allow for use in Open Source applications/systems, effectively working as a new Vendor Lock-In attempt.

Why not? I would even use an Apple-developed and Apple-promoted format, as long as it's open. I don't exactly suffer from a "not made here" syndrome.

It seems there are some specs for the MS format... but let's say that Microsoft doesn't have the best track record on open standards. That's why some people are wary.

If they can assure they don't to screw up the rest of the competition (like adding proprietary bits to the format until it becomes incompatible to anything but their filter) and they are taking the steps for making it a standard format (forget RAND; no royalties at all), then I have no problem with that. If they have a good faith, they will.

Although both are closely related, I tend to favour open formats over open source; my data is more important than my system, after all.

That's a perfectly level-headed answer, and I'm on your side.

It's the anti-Microsoft-regardless-of-anything loons that I'm trying to shake out.

There are no such anti-Microsoft-regardless-of-anything loons in here.

There are however people wanting to avoid Vendor Lock-In.

I doubt I qualify as one of those "loons", but I don't want to see another proprietary closed format to create Vendor Lock-In.

And no, the specifications are not open.

And there's no such thing as vendor "lock-in" when it comes to Linux distributions? RHEL?

Vendor lock-in is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't have the intention of using any other vendor, then what does it matter?

There is no vendor-lockin in Linux.

It matters because your actions mean I'm getting locked in as well.

Anyway, to quote your own profile: "Bio: Linux is f***ing garbage."

To me this doesn't sound like a person who chooses the best tool, but as a person with an ill, political agenda.

Who runs Ubuntu? A niche inside a niche. So trying to push a new format by making Ubuntu's apps save in this format by default would hardly mean anything.

Well, in that case it would be an open and free format, opposite WMPhoto.

It could be used you, by me, by Microsoft and by Stallman, so people would probably not care about the legal parts.

It's not open!

An "Open Specification" means everybody can use it freely with absolutely no limitation of any kind.

You cannot legally create a library for Syllable OS or Haiku OS, that can handle WMP-images.

Ergo: It is not open. Accessible != Open.

Why not? Fraunhofer and Thomson license the tech behind MP3 decoders/encoders -- and yet, despite threats of patent infringement, etc -- plug-in code written and dumped into the public domain has made it possible to integrate this technology into Linux. Technically, that code violates patents; however, since no one in particular owns it, nobody can be held accountable. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's practically impossible to put it back in. I suspect the same will be true of WMPhoto.

As long as a Linux distro (or whatever other free OS) can't ship with mp3/etc codecs, certain device drivers, patented typeface hinting, anything common yet patented (old examples: GIF image support, encryption methods, etc) *out-of-the-box*, and there are manual steps to be taken to get that, most normal people will stay with Windows, remaining part of the problem.

I think that the key will be if MS convinces camera manufacturers to move to this format. Having a higher fidelity format with superior compression is a tangible incentive for hardware OEMs.

"JPEG is an standard (at least defacto standard) and together with TIFF and EPS is standard format
within graphical business such as printing plants, prepresses an repro houses."

Microsoft is working very hard to really own the media formats: office, audio, video, and now photos, a PDF-killer, ripping. They've taken much of the old "Apple pie".

For the obvious reason: vendor lock-ins. Those companies don't like public format they don't control themselves.

It doesn't make sense that it would want to hobble adoption with strong restrictions.

It makes sense if your end goal is vendor lock-in.

There are too many WMV3 vids out there that I can't play on my machine. I really don't want another format that you have to find a Windows machine to view. At least videos aren't an essential component of most webpages...!

The "funny" part is that even in Windows the WMV3 vids out there have problems for play they

And it specifies the the format in as much as the different depths and bit formats as well as extra information.

What it doesn't contain is any information about how the image data is actually compressed. IE the algorithm used. it just shows us where in the file the image data goes.

For more info on the format at this stage, you need to request a porting kit.
Email wmla AT microsoft.com
with subject: XPS WMPhoto License

The final licensing will conform to the XPS icense as WM Photo is also part of the XPS spec.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpslicense.mspx