Sign in to follow this  
Rick Brewster

HD Photo plugin - BETA

Recommended Posts

What are the benefits of saving to either 32bit or 24 bit?

32 bit allows you to preserve alpha. 24 bit may results in smaller files, as I see it.

Does anybody (maybe somebody who knows something about the code) know wich HDP-value gives you similar results in quality to JPEG-value 96 or 97? I know that this won't be lossless, but e.g. pictures of a camera in JPEG are already not lossless and I just hope to reduce the filesize.

Last but not least, this plugin expires September 1st (by the way, for what reason?), so I hope it will be updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Rick: When will the new version be available? Since one week, I can't open my HD photos in PDN... :(

@ Everybody: Windows Live Photo Gallery Beta is now public. Now XP users can view and even organize HD Photo files using an UI similar to WMP 11, too. At the moment, I see only two nasty things:

1.) HD Photo still has no shell integration (in XP), so you won't get a prewiev in Windows Explorer and no metadata access.

2.) The Installer is only a wizard which downloads the selected programmes. So you can not get and use Photo Gallery on computers without internet connection.

The installer can be found here: http://get.live.com/betas/photogallery_betas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ymaster587    0

Hey I just tried HD Photo out for the first time. When I saved an old .PNG image with HD Photo on maximum quality, its file size was reduced from 924kb to 551. :D:D Can't wait till this format gets popular :mrgreen: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Rick: No need to be sorry. You have so many things to do, so it's just easy to forget the little upload. :D Thank you.

Edit: And not to forget... Thank you that you removed the date based expiration. It really disturbed me and just was nasty (but I think you had reasons for it).

@ Ymaster587: Well, when you use software to optimize pngs, PNG will beat lossless HD Photo in most of the cases (but not by far). But I have to say that I'm a kind of HD Photo fan. It's like a combination of better JPEG and PNG, so I really look forward to it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
david.atwell    280
I don't know if I have .NET Framework 3.0, is there any way to check if you already have it?

Go to Start > Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs... and look for the .NET framework in the list. If you have 3.0, it'll show there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was testing out this plug-in, and noticed something quite strange. If you save a file (.wdp) in which about 73% or more of the pixels are transparent, saving it at a 32-bit depth at 99% quality results in a larger file size than saving it at 100% quality. This effect also seems to amplify as more transparent pixels are added. So, for example saving a 400x300 resolution file where 73.333% the pixels are transparent results in less than a 1024 byte difference, while saving a completely transparent 400x300 file at 100% and 99% quality result in 736 and 33,028 byte file sizes, respectively. That a 44.875 times bigger file size, at less quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick Brewster    816

This is just a guess --- but it could be saving the alpha channel losslessly. Therefore, a more complex alpha channel = less ability to compress = more bytes on disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew D    0

I'm slightly worried about one thing, if I'm right, getting the .NET Framework 3.0 will cause Visual Studio to not work propably, because it needs the resources from the .NET 2.0 gallery, right?

So, is there any way to overcome this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob    3
if I'm right, getting the .NET Framework 3.0 will cause Visual Studio to not work propably, because it needs the resources from the .NET 2.0 gallery

You're wrong.

.NET 3.0 is just the .NET Framework + some "Vista librairies" (WPF, WCP, WWF, Cardspace...).

VS will don't see any difference.

Well, you'll be able to make .NET 3.0 applications, but no downgrade.

Oh and in case of a fresh install, you do not have to install .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.0.

Just install 3.0. And don't install 1.1, nobody use it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob    3
Well, you'll be able to make .NET 3.0 applications, but no downgrade.

I'm wrong here.

You'll need .NET 3.0 SDK to create .NET 3.0 apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew D    0
Well, you'll be able to make .NET 3.0 applications, but no downgrade.

I'm wrong here.

You'll need .NET 3.0 SDK to create .NET 3.0 apps.

I'm guessing the SDK is a run-time environment, right?

EDIT: I read the Visual Studio read-me, and I may have to un-install Visual Studio and all it's componets, and then update the framework, although I may have interperated it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, as I read in your blog, HDP support will not be included in 3.20, so I wonder when this plugin will leave it's beta stage. I think it works without errors for en-/decoding.

Or do you plan to include further features, like embedding color profiles (claimed as possible by Wikipedia)? This could be interesting for artists, I believe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myrddin    4
Does that come with the .NET 3.0 Framework by default, or is it an additional download?

From here: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx

This download contains version 1.0, the released version, of the specification and is fully compatible with the version of HD Photo (Windows Media Photo) that is currently shipping with Windows Vista, Windows Image Component (WIC), and .NET Framework 3.0.

Appears so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick Brewster    816

WIC implements the imaging and codec stuff. WPF provides a new rendering and UI framework that uses WIC as its imaging component. WPF is part of .NET 3.0, which is installed as part of Vista. .NET 3.0, and hence WIC + WPF, are also available for XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WIC implements the imaging and codec stuff. WPF provides a new rendering and UI framework that uses WIC as its imaging component. WPF is part of .NET 3.0, which is installed as part of Vista. .NET 3.0, and hence WIC + WPF, are also available for XP.

So you need only WIC (available as seperate download, 1,2 MB) without the large other .Net 3 stuff to have HD Photo support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick Brewster    816

Assuming that any HD Photo application you want to use is going through WIC and not WPC, then yes. This Paint.NET plugin uses WPF, and as such .NET 3.0 is definitely required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this