Microsoft HD Photo Plug-ins for Photoshop are Released

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Navas, Feb 3, 2008.

  1. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    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/archive/2007/12/06/hd-photo-plug-ins-for-photoshop-are-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, Feb 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Navas

    Sachin Garg Guest

    Sachin Garg, Feb 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

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

    >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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, Feb 3, 2008
    #3
  4. John Navas

    Sachin Garg Guest

    On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    > wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    > >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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, Feb 4, 2008
    #4
  5. John Navas

    Guest

    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 <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    >> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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?
    , Feb 4, 2008
    #5
  6. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

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

    >On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    >> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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, Feb 4, 2008
    #6
  7. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    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 <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    >>> wrote in
    >>> <>:
    >>>
    >>> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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, Feb 4, 2008
    #7
  8. John Navas

    Sachin Garg Guest

    On Feb 4, 12:32 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:22:08 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    > wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    > >On Feb 4, 3:13 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    > >> wrote in
    > >> <>:

    >
    > >> >On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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, Feb 4, 2008
    #8
  9. John Navas

    -hh Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > 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, Feb 4, 2008
    #9
  10. John Navas schrieb:
    > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    > wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >> On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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, Feb 4, 2008
    #10
  11. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:15:52 +0100, Thomas Richter
    <-berlin.de> wrote in
    <fo76if$sv8$-stuttgart.de>:

    >John Navas schrieb:
    >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:06:59 -0800 (PST), Sachin Garg <>
    >> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>> On Feb 3, 11:51 am, John Navas <> 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.


    I don't do sales of any sort; I have no interest in HD Photo other than
    as a potential user; and you are of course free to buy whatever you
    wish.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #11
  12. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <fo76if$sv8$-stuttgart.de>, Thomas Richter
    <-berlin.de> wrote:

    > 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.


    Explanation - Navas is an idiot.
    Mr. Strat, Feb 4, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pasquini Davide

    Plug ins problem

    Pasquini Davide, Aug 22, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    866
    Pasquini Davide
    Aug 22, 2003
  2. graeme@invalid

    Plug-ins?

    graeme@invalid, Nov 9, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,403
  3. Tony Nazar

    Question re: Photoshop Elements Plug-ins

    Tony Nazar, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    Boots Crofoot
    Oct 8, 2003
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    ODF Plug-ins and a Microsoft Promise of Cooperation

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 7, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    315
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    May 7, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    755
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page