Jump to content

HD Photo plugin - BETA


Rick Brewster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pretty nice; every image is unique compression-wise.
not when the PNG is compressed with PNGOUT. not even HD Photo beats that.
I found PNGOUT and couldn't get it to work. PNGGauntlet, though it doesn't compress as well as PNGOUT (even though it's a gui for PNGOUT), compresses better than HD Photo. Plus you don't need a special viewer to see the pics. :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too use PNGGauntlet for the fact it said it uses the principles of PNGout which is much better than PNGcrush. I would use HD but so far PDN is the only program I own and know of that can view such a format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, what's so wonderful about it? Looks like was expecting something more impressive. A 10Mpix photo (3648x2736) taken by Olympus E-400 at SHQ quality (and lowest possible compression ratio) takes 6,84 MB in default JPEG state. Compressing it with wonderful HD Photo thingie INCREASES the size to 10,5 MB. Sorry, i don't see any practical use in this. I expected it to losslessly compress the image at least down to 2,5-3MB, not to increase it.

So in the end it's only useful with smaller images and low encoding rates.

I can't see how word "HD" fits in there. Is resolution 3648x2736 not HD enough? Huh... Still nice work on the plugin...

rejzor.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, what's so wonderful about it? Looks like was expecting something more impressive. A 10Mpix photo (3648x2736) taken by Olympus E-400 at SHQ quality (and lowest possible compression ratio) takes 6,84 MB in default JPEG state. Compressing it with wonderful HD Photo thingie INCREASES the size to 10,5 MB. Sorry, i don't see any practical use in this. I expected it to losslessly compress the image at least down to 2,5-3MB, not to increase it.

So in the end it's only useful with smaller images and low encoding rates.

I can't see how word "HD" fits in there. Is resolution 3648x2736 not HD enough? Huh... Still nice work on the plugin...

Actually, it does compress, that depends on your photo (i.e. number of colors and values). If you save an image (without transparency) as a PNG, then save it as and HD, then chances are that the file size reduced.

"The greatest thing about the Internet is that you can write anything you want and give it a false source." ~Ezra Pound

twtr | dA | tmblr | yt | fb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the point of HD Photo format? Honestly it's better to compress the photos with 7-zip (LZMA) and you actually decrease size without losing any info (small but at least it is). I'll just keep my HD photos in original JPEG state. Quality will be top notch while still miles smaller than HD Photo format...

rejzor.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must disagree.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG#Comparison_with_JPEG

You are comparing a totally lossy format with a lossless mode of another.

Try saving an original uncompressed image with the same level of compression.

I can say without doubt that for most of the case, the HDPhoto will produce a better quality.

No. Way. I've just seen Bob. And... *poof!*—just like that—he disappears into the mist again. ~Helio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about practical usage for real life HD photos. I think anyone would expect HD Photo format to persist the quality of originally taken photo from high quality digital camera while decreasing the size significantly. They advertise it as such after all... I get none of it and using lossy option just to decrease size is not an option since you have to go so low, it gets full of artifacts already.

rejzor.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

@ 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

Link to comment
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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/

Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html

forumSig_bmwE60.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
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.

The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/

Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html

forumSig_bmwE60.jpg

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...