|
Anyone who uses digital cameras knows the problem - files are getting bigger all the time. When I started digital photography, a 1MB file was considered pretty large. Now my camera shoots file that are 10 - 15 MB. Jpegs are relatively small but they are a "lossy" compression format - each time you compress the data you lose some of it. Lots of people recomend tiffs but they are huge (tiffs from my D2X are 35MB each).
Enter Microsoft with a brand new file format. Windows Media Photo promises to surpass "the limitations of existing image formats". Amongst other claims it says that it will reduce the "mosquito" effects which occur on edges and sharp tonal boundaries when a file is compressed as a jpeg. There are some very good things about the new format - according to Microsoft it can compress images without data loss 2.5 times, so it could crush my 35MB tiff down to a 14MB .wdp file without losing any data. It also compresses files using a lossy algorithm twice as well as jpegs - that is a file of the same image quality would be half the size as a .wdp than it would as a .jpg. It also takes "less computational power" to compress/decompress files than the jpeg routine.
This all sounds great - so why aren't people delighted about this?
First of all, we've been here before. Jpeg 2000 promises virtually everything Windows Media Photo does (hey, I'm going to call it "WMP" for short from now on - even though the official file extension is ".wdp"). In fact, most of the Microsoft press releases compare WMP to Jpeg2000 and say "it's roughly as good" - the only key advantage appears to be this "lower computational power" (more of that below). Most people who have used Jpeg2000 reckon it delivers what it promises - but it still isn't widely used. I do't know of any camera that can write Jpeg2000 or even anyone who routinely uses it to save their files. It just never really took off becuase for most people jpeg is good enough and for the others NO lossy system could ever be good enough.
Secondly, it's come at an unfortunate time. Every time I go to buy a compact flash card then either it is twice as big as the last one I bought or half the price - sometimes both. The same is true of hard drives. Switching to WMP saves me one price jump but it's likely that prices will go on dropping and space will go on increasing so one jump really isn't that significant to me.
Thirdly (and this is possibly the most important one), a lot of people don't trust Microsoft. As soon as this was anounced, all the talk on the tech geek boards was to do with "proprietary formats" and "possible lock in". There's no indication that Microsoft would ever restrict access to the format or charge for its use but the fact that it is Microsoft that is producing it is enough to put a lot of people off. Remember it's the people on the techie geek boards who write small utility software that makes using files easy - if they adopt a file format then it's a winner - if not then it's an uphill battle. Since the benefits don't seem huge, people see no reason to trust Microsoft on this one. It's sad to say it, but if another company had come up with this it might be more successful.
So where does that leave us?
Microsoft are comitted to the format and that counts for a LOT. It will be plumbed right into Vista when that ships and that means 80% of digital photographers will have it available to them. Whether it gets used or not is anyone's guess.
My own personal guess is that most of the future lies in that phrase "less computational power" - I see this being used on low powered devices that aren't dedicated cameras. Stand by to see WMP appearing on your phone soon.
| 
