Microsoft HD Photo Plug-ins for Photoshop are Released

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo

"HD Photo has been announced by Microsoft and the Joint Photographic
Experts Group to be under consideration for a JPEG standard, tentatively
titled JPEG XR.

"The HD Photo bitstream specification claims that "HD Photo offers image
quality comparable to JPEG-2000 with computational and memory
performance more closely comparable to JPEG", that it "delivers a lossy
compressed image of better perceptive quality than JPEG at less than
half the file size", and that "lossless compressed images … are
typically 2.5 times smaller than the original uncompressed data".


http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/archi...-released.aspx

"HD Photo plug-ins for Adobe® Photoshop® CS2 and CS3 have been
officially released for both Windows and OSX. They're available now from
the Microsoft Download Center. [Links on this webpage]

"The Windows version is supported on Windows XP and Windows Vista, and
works with Photoshop CS2 and CS3. While not officially supported, it
will also work with limited features with older versions of Photoshop
and with Photoshop Elements. The included README file has details.


For PSE6, I installed it to
C:\Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop Elements 6.0\Plug-Ins\HD Photo Plugin
for Adobe Photoshop\
It works properly, as far as I can tell, for both Opening and Saving.
File size and processing speed seem consistent with the claims for the
format.

John Navas

On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo

I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
the quality difference the the marketing material promises?

Sachin Garg [India]
www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info

Sachin Garg

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
wrote in
<239e9507-afa5-4348-ab6a->:

>On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo
>
>I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
>the quality difference the the marketing material promises?

As noted in my original post, I've done some modest testing, and it
seems to live up to the claims:
* Quality comparable to JPEG with greater compression
* Quality better than JPEG at the same compression
* Speed faster than JPEG2000 and comparable to JPEG
* Lossless size smaller than JPEG2000
* Support for 16-bit (and greater) color depth.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas

On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <schn...@gmail.com>
> wrote in
> <239e9507-afa5-4348-ab6a-bb1ed9ae0...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo
>
> >I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
> >the quality difference the the marketing material promises?
>
> As noted in my original post, I've done some modest testing, and it
> seems to live up to the claims:
> * Quality comparable to JPEG with greater compression
> * Quality better than JPEG at the same compression
> * Speed faster than JPEG2000 and comparable to JPEG
> * Lossless size smaller than JPEG2000
> * Support for 16-bit (and greater) color depth.

Interesting, in my tests I found different results. While it is faster
than Jpeg2000, compression and quality results were not positive.

Did anyone else take it for a spin?

Sachin Garg [India]
www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info

Sachin Garg

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:22:08 -0800 (PST), in rec.photo.digital Sachin Garg
<> wrote:

>
>On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <schn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <239e9507-afa5-4348-ab6a-bb1ed9ae0...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo
>>
>> >I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
>> >the quality difference the the marketing material promises?
>>
>> As noted in my original post, I've done some modest testing, and it
>> seems to live up to the claims:
>> * Quality comparable to JPEG with greater compression
>> * Quality better than JPEG at the same compression
>> * Speed faster than JPEG2000 and comparable to JPEG
>> * Lossless size smaller than JPEG2000
>> * Support for 16-bit (and greater) color depth.
>
>Interesting, in my tests I found different results. While it is faster
>than Jpeg2000, compression and quality results were not positive.
>
>Did anyone else take it for a spin?

Why bother?

me@mine.net

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:22:08 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
wrote in
<f49fd2e0-faf8-4278-bd43->:

>On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <schn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <239e9507-afa5-4348-ab6a-bb1ed9ae0...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo
>>
>> >I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
>> >the quality difference the the marketing material promises?
>>
>> As noted in my original post, I've done some modest testing, and it
>> seems to live up to the claims:
>> * Quality comparable to JPEG with greater compression
>> * Quality better than JPEG at the same compression
>> * Speed faster than JPEG2000 and comparable to JPEG
>> * Lossless size smaller than JPEG2000
>> * Support for 16-bit (and greater) color depth.
>
>Interesting, in my tests I found different results. While it is faster
>than Jpeg2000, compression and quality results were not positive.

What I noticed is that starting with JPEG images, especially those with
significant compression, gives poorer results with HD Photo than
starting with uncompressed images (RAW, TIFF).

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:34:47 -0500, wrote in
<>:

>On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:22:08 -0800 (PST), in rec.photo.digital Sachin Garg
><> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <schn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in
>>> <239e9507-afa5-4348-ab6a-bb1ed9ae0...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo
>>>
>>> >I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
>>> >the quality difference the the marketing material promises?
>>>
>>> As noted in my original post, I've done some modest testing, and it
>>> seems to live up to the claims:
>>> * Quality comparable to JPEG with greater compression
>>> * Quality better than JPEG at the same compression
>>> * Speed faster than JPEG2000 and comparable to JPEG
>>> * Lossless size smaller than JPEG2000
>>> * Support for 16-bit (and greater) color depth.
>>
>>Interesting, in my tests I found different results. While it is faster
>>than Jpeg2000, compression and quality results were not positive.
>>
>>Did anyone else take it for a spin?
>
>Why bother?

In my case, I'm giving it serious consideration as an archive format.
Sample image:
PSD: 20.2 MB
TIFF: 18.8 MB
RAW: 17.6 MB
PNG: 14.7 MB (no metadata)
HD Photo: 11.4 MB
JPEG2000: 11.2 MB

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas

On Feb 4, 12:32 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:22:08 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <schn...@gmail.com>
> wrote in
> <f49fd2e0-faf8-4278-bd43-05f5d0e31...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <schn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in
> >> <239e9507-afa5-4348-ab6a-bb1ed9ae0...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo
>
> >> >I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
> >> >the quality difference the the marketing material promises?
>
> >> As noted in my original post, I've done some modest testing, and it
> >> seems to live up to the claims:
> >> * Quality comparable to JPEG with greater compression
> >> * Quality better than JPEG at the same compression
> >> * Speed faster than JPEG2000 and comparable to JPEG
> >> * Lossless size smaller than JPEG2000
> >> * Support for 16-bit (and greater) color depth.
>
> >Interesting, in my tests I found different results. While it is faster
> >than Jpeg2000, compression and quality results were not positive.
>
> What I noticed is that starting with JPEG images, especially those with
> significant compression, gives poorer results with HD Photo than
> starting with uncompressed images (RAW, TIFF).

Yes that could be the case. My tests were also on uncompressed images
created direct from raw or scanned from film.

Sachin Garg [India]
www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info

Sachin Garg

John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> m...@mine.net wrote:
> >Why bother?
>
> In my case, I'm giving it serious consideration as an archive format.
> Sample image:
> * *PSD: * * *20.2 MB
> * *TIFF: * * 18.8 MB
> * *RAW: * * *17.6 MB
> * *PNG: * * *14.7 MB (no metadata)
> * *HD Photo: 11.4 MB
> * *JPEG2000: 11.2 MB

If those are typical images and at $100 for a 500GB HD, that's roughly
a cost basis of $0.004 for the largest size (yes, 4/10ths of a cent),
versus roughly half of that for the smallest. Even if you triple the
cost basis to add redundancy via extra platters), you're still only
talking about a difference of a half cent per image.

Per 10,000 images, that's only a whopping $50 difference.

Indeed - why bother!


-hh

-hh

John Navas schrieb:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
> wrote in
> <239e9507-afa5-4348-ab6a->:
>
>> On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_Photo
>> I am curious if anyone has actually tried using it, did they notice
>> the quality difference the the marketing material promises?
>
> As noted in my original post, I've done some modest testing, and it
> seems to live up to the claims:
> * Quality comparable to JPEG with greater compression
> * Quality better than JPEG at the same compression
> * Speed faster than JPEG2000 and comparable to JPEG
> * Lossless size smaller than JPEG2000
> * Support for 16-bit (and greater) color depth.

Do you have any data backing up your claim? I believe your claims that
it is able to handle 16bpp, and I also believe that it's faster than
JPEG2000 in general, but that's about all I buy. Are you potentially
a salesperson? If so, please indicate clearly. Thank you.

So long,
Thomas

Thomas Richter