Microsoft WMP vs. JPEG-2000 comparison

[DmitriyV]

As your know Microsoft prefers its own formats - its own WMV (not MPEG-4 or AVC), WMA (not MP3 or MPEG-4 AAC), etc.

In May 2006 Microsoft presented a new format for images - WMP - as a replacement for JPEG-2000:

> The software maker detailed the new image format Wednesday at the
> Windows Hardware Engineering Conference here. Windows Media Photo will
> be supported in Windows Vista and also be made available for Windows
> XP, Bill Crow, program manager for Windows Media Photo, said in a
> presentation.
>
> In his presentation, Crow showed an image with 24:1 compression that
> visibly contained more detail in the Windows Media Photo format than
> the JPEG and JPEG 2000 formats compressed at the same level.
>
> Still, the image in the Microsoft format was somewhat distorted
> because of the high compression level. Typically digital cameras today
> use 6:1 compression, Crow said. Windows Media Photo should offer
> better pictures at double that level, he said. "We can do it in half
> the size of a JPEG file."

We tested Microsoft's codec of this new format to compare it with 9 JPEG-2000 image coders using PSNR and SSIM metrics.

Please find our results here: http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/wmp_codecs_comparison_en.html

Any comments are welcomed!

[lordsmurf]

Can I get the Cliff's Notes?

Did the study find it good, crap, or indifferent? Yeah, I'm being lazy. 8)

[DmitriyV]

Can I get the Cliff's Notes?

See http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/

Did the study find it good, crap, or indifferent? Yeah, I'm being lazy. 8)

I think so.

[dphirschler]

Let me guess... WMP has better copyright protection and DRM.


Darryl

[CrayonEater]

Well acording to a comparison I saw WMP looks like sh-t compared with a file just 5% larger. So much for better compression.

It seems only intended to be supported by TCA-based operating systems, namely Vista and XP SP2, so obviously it's more about DRM than anything else.

[jagabo]

Can I get the Cliff's Notes?

General conclusions
• Despite commercial announcements, WMPhoto quality is similar to JPEG
2000.
• Some one-year old implementations of JPEG 2000 significantly outperform
WMPhoto in objective and subjective comparison.
• The battle of formats is still ahead: although JPEG 2000 may be better then
WMPhoto, its’ support is still not added to many popular programs (browsers,
viewers, image editors, etc.). Efforts in this field may lead to WMPhoto
domination despite worse compression possibilities.

[thecoalman]

looks like sh-t compared with a file just 5% larger. So much for better compression

I'll agree, quality loss certainly doesn't justify trimming a few bytes no matter what compression method you're using.

[thecoalman]

Let me guess... WMP has better copyright protection and DRM.

And the point is? You're argument shouldn't be with DRM, you're argument should be with the way it's being used. I'm certainly not a DRM advocate especially the way it's being implemented for commercially available material but it does have some very good uses. Just as an example I run a site for a few friends in a band. They offer a few songs from their CD's for free at 128kbps. *If DRM worked* :P and they wanted to pay to license it they could offer all their songs in a high quality format for one-time playback, this would benefit both them and the consumer. They'd be able to give the consumer the ability to hear their songs as they were intended and the consumer would be able to preview them if they wanted to purchase them or could even return to the site and listen as much as they wanted. The same scenario can be used for for images, if I'm selling photos from my site and *if the DRM worked :P * I'd be able to offer the full image for preview at it's highest quality without a giant watermark on it. Again both the producer and the consumer benefit.

There's other benefits as well, if you're a small time producer such as a band trying to make a few bucks on your music you really only have one alternative and that's to make a CD. DRM can change that *if it worked :P *. Small bands or even large bands can offer their music direct to the consumer through there websites where they can set whatever rules they want taking out the middleman such as the large companies like Sony that are setting ridiculous rules....

[JohnnyMalaria]

There's other benefits as well, if you're a small time producer such as a band trying to make a few bucks on your music you really only have one alternative and that's to make a CD. DRM can change that *if it worked :P *. Small bands or even large bands can offer their music direct to the consumer through there websites where they can set whatever rules they want taking out the middleman such as the large companies like Sony that are setting ridiculous rules....

Digressing slightly, but you might be interested in the following (my wife used to be the Financial Controller for a record label and distribution company):

1. The cost to manufacture one CD is approx. $8
2. The distributor sell the CD to retailers for approx. $10
3. Retailers sell the CD for $15 up

i.e., retailers such as Best Buy, Borders etc etc take the lion's share of profit - not the label/distributor.

Furthermore, retailers don't even buy the CDs up front, they can send them back for any reason and, if sent back, they have to be destroyed or fully repackaged at the cost of the distributor.

The artist typically makes next to nothing since they sign contracts that they don't read. Invariably, the label will hold back royalties to cover future returns by retailers.

Anyway, my wife left and set up her own company to help artists get decent deals. Many of the artists on the label she used to work for now have better deals or have changed labels!

[oldandinthe way]

JohnnyMalaria

Your figure on the cost of manufacturing a CD is way off. Production cost on CDs in jewel cases with printed inserts is under $1.00.

At a distributor bankruptcy sale I have the opportunity to buy CDs issued by my brother's small record label for under $3.00. My brother didn't want the CDs because they exceeded his manufacturing cost by a substantial margin.

That $8 figure must include a great deal of company burden and cocaine.

The record industry has run for years on NET180 billing with return for credit against future purchases. This has significant impact on artist royalties - even when the record label isn't scummy.

Nonetheless CD revenue is significant for minor bands who sell their CDs at their gigs at full price, and make the retailer's profit margin. Generally these sales exceed their royalties.

Online sales of these bands are not held back by DRM or lack of DRM, they are held back by the fact that noone knows they exist. What record companies offer is promotion - better or worse, and online sales parallel retail sales with the same hits making up iTunes sales that make up Walmart's sales (Source:WSJ). Apple is making it very difficult for small, independant labels to sell on iTunes - because they don't sell.

[ViRaL1]

I would guess all the production costs from paying the artists through studio time, recording mastering etc were part of the 'manufacturing' cost listed above. Any of us can buy a spindle of 100 CDs and 100 jewel cases for less than $20 at a local retailer if we're patient.

[JohnnyMalaria]

JohnnyMalaria

Your figure on the cost of manufacturing a CD is way off. Production cost on CDs in jewel cases with printed inserts is under $1.00.

I should have been more specific - the cost to produce a final, packaged CD is about $8 - includes the royalties to the artist, mechanical licenses for cover versions, salaries and wages for the staff, advertising, touring etc etc.

Also, the packaged version isn't as simple as a jewel case with printed inserts. The likes of Best Buy have VERY specific requirements. Shrink wrapping, RFID, barcoding and all other kinds of stuff. And each retailer has different requirements - so the distributor can't just make a huge pile of identically-packaged CDs and send them to different outlets. When retailers return CDs (for whatever reason they choose!), they have to be either repackaged or destroyed. Repackaging is expensive. Destruction is easy - a drill press and one operator.

Nonetheless CD revenue is significant for minor bands who sell their CDs at their gigs at full price, and make the retailer's profit margin. Generally these sales exceed their royalties.

Agreed - one of my wife's clients makes more money selling CDs from the back of their van! But, some artists still get ripped off by signing contracts that they don't read. Sadly.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I would guess all the production costs from paying the artists through studio time, recording mastering etc were part of the 'manufacturing' cost listed above. Any of us can buy a spindle of 100 CDs and 100 jewel cases for less than $20 at a local retailer if we're patient.

That's for CD-Rs. Not "genuine" CDs that require a master disc for pressing etc.

[thecoalman]

I find a price of $8 per disc hard to believe even with all the expenses added in. here's quote from cdman.com for replication(pressed) of 500 discs with all the trimmings. $4 a disc.:

Content:

Qty: Description

500 CDs, includes glass mastering

5 Silk Screen Colours on disc

4 Customer to supply final disc art, PDF proofs (option A)

1000 Trapsheet plus 16pg stapled booklet 4/4 (min 1000)

4 Customer to supply final art for print above, PDF proofs (option A)

500 Jewel Box, Slate Gray or Clear Tray with shrinkwrap

1 Barcode?: Yes - add CDman # to my final design template

1 Topspine?: Yes

Subtotal $ 2024.00
500 Shipping ground zone 0 $ 60.50
--------------------------------------------------
Total in U.S. Dollars $ 2084.50

[JohnnyMalaria]

Disbelieve all you like - $8 is the cost to the distributor (including all the necessary royalties for licensing, salaries, warehousing, managing inventory etc etc). $10 the wholesale price to the retailer. $15+ the end user price.

[lordsmurf]

Can I get the Cliff's Notes?

General conclusions
• Despite commercial announcements, WMPhoto quality is similar to JPEG
2000.
• Some one-year old implementations of JPEG 2000 significantly outperform
WMPhoto in objective and subjective comparison.
• The battle of formats is still ahead: although JPEG 2000 may be better then
WMPhoto, its’ support is still not added to many popular programs (browsers,
viewers, image editors, etc.). Efforts in this field may lead to WMPhoto
domination despite worse compression possibilities.

Thanks.

[Jester700]

I find a price of $8 per disc hard to believe even with all the expenses added in. here's quote from cdman.com for replication(pressed) of 500 discs with all the trimmings. $4 a disc.:

You weren't listening. The $8 includes:

Publishing royalties: roughly 9 cents/tune. Assuming 11 songs, that's $1 for songwriting.

Mechanical royalties. Depends on the deal, but assuming $1.50 a disc would be just over 8% of retail; this number's in the ballpark. That's if the CD recoups recording costs, which few do. If not, the artists won't get mechanicals, but the studio still has to pay these costs. That could be a WIDE range. A big budget act that records expensively ($250k?) but tanks adds a couple bucks per CD to the bottom line.

Of course, the label needs to pay everyone in their company - the secretaries & janitors don't work for free.

So yeah, replication is cheap, but for what other industry do you only consider manufacturing cost? A $500 Sony receiver probably costs $50 to build if you forget about design, transportation, ads, etc.

[Nelson37]

Cost Of Goods Sold (COGS) is an accounting concept often ignored, most typically when someone is trying to "prove" that a manufacturer is making "too much" money.

The actual fact is that whatever total company expenses are, each and every single item sold must pay it's share of those costs. Those who do not understand this either have never run a business or won't for very much longer.

The cost to make a CD includes the electric bill, paper clips, union negotiators, floor wax, advertising, boxing tape, sticky shipping labels, ink for the printer, portion of replacement cost for every PC, fax, copier and piece of equipment, rent on office space and warehouses, Social Security payments, unemployment insurance, health insurance, maternity leave, in short every single freaking bill paid by the company in any way, shape, or form.

[thecoalman]

So assuming we take $2.50 off the top that still leaves $6.50 to account for. The $4 I quoted is for 500 discs, if you're running off a couple of hundred thousand copies the cost is going to be drstically reduced. I'll suggest $1.50 a disc which still leaves $4. Of course you have the other expenses (@Nelson37, being in business I'm well aware of the concept ) but for each disc sold these costs become less a percentage. You could argue they lose money on discs but this would be offset by discs that are very popular especially for the bigger copanies that have huge libraries. I still don't see $8 a disc, maybe for a really small lable but large companies like Sony aren't paying $8 a disc.

Anyhow WMP images suck. :P