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. Advertisements

  2. John Navas

    Sachin Garg Guest

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

  3. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    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.
     
    John Navas, Feb 3, 2008
    #3
  4. John Navas

    Sachin Garg Guest

    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

    me Guest

    Why bother?
     
    me, Feb 4, 2008
    #5
  6. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    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).
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #6
  7. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    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
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #7
  8. John Navas

    Sachin Garg Guest

    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

    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. 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

    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.
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #11
  12. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

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

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.