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.

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.

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.

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".

Are you serious or just trolling?

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

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.