Any word from Microsoft on the HORRIBLE wallpaper compression issues in Windows 8?

Question

Hi, I realize this sort of discussion/question has come up here a couple of times and on many different help forums; but I can't help but create a new one. This is really something annoying.

==

MICROSOFT! Will you PLEASE hear out your faithful customers and get RID of the compression issues plaguing our modern desktops!?

==

I realize Microsoft is maybe trying to streamline it's OS to work on many platforms (Desktops, Tablets, Phones, etc..) and the effort is greatly appreciate as it saves a lot of time on some things. Since Windows 7, I really LOVE the feature of having the Wallpapers change every so many seconds/minutes. BEST feature ever in my opinion. I can actually use my monitor as part of an artistic showcase, looks clean and modern.

While I could maybe see the compression becoming an advantage on low-power platforms, many of us use normal desktop computers that can handle JPEG's WITHOUT compression.

I mean, Windows XP could properly display the same image and not compress it; yet our PC's have only gotten more powerful and quicker at multi-tasking since Windows XP. Our monitors have also gone up in quality and sharpness. Why should we have to make do with cheap quality compressed images???

I regularly convert my photography to the proper size to be displayed on my monitor, and it is EXTREMELY irritating to see the quality degrade THAT badly.

An example of the terrible compression Windows 8 imposes on wallpapers:

(a 100% crop from the same 1920x1080 picture to show the compression artifacts)

On the Left: the picture set as a wallpaper

On the Right: the same picture viewed at 100% in Picture Viewer or any other picture software

Thank you for your time; and every effort into fixing this is appreciated. I do not want to come through as "blasting" or "flaming" Microsoft here, just voicing an honest opinion many have been having and many are hoping gets resolved.

Answer 1

Is there "word from Microsoft"?  No.

Now that we're clear that there's no word from Microsoft here and there probably will not be because that's not really how things function, you and I at the least can have a polite and friendly conversation about the subject without regards to anything more than discussing what you're seeing.  I'm speaking on my own behalf here, and no warranties are express nor implied.  I just want to be crystal clear that I am not support.  I am interested in what you're seeing.

What pixel format are you using?  Generally the desktop uses 24bpp RGB, and should add color correction if available as specified.  Without a sample image to examine it's hard to speak to this.  You mention that you're using the same resolution for your wallpaper as is set for your monitor, which is a good plan.  What PPI are you using?

Answer 2

Is there "word from Microsoft"?  No.

Now that we're clear that there's no word from Microsoft here and there probably will not be because that's not really how things function, you and I at the least can have a polite and friendly conversation about the subject without regards to anything more than discussing what you're seeing.  I'm speaking on my own behalf here, and no warranties are express nor implied.  I just want to be crystal clear that I am not support.  I am interested in what you're seeing.

What pixel format are you using?  Generally the desktop uses 24bpp RGB, and should add color correction if available as specified.  Without a sample image to examine it's hard to speak to this.  You mention that you're using the same resolution for your wallpaper as is set for your monitor, which is a good plan.  What PPI are you using?

Well, I appreciate your interest in the matter.

I have a little trouble explaining things clearly, and I will appreciate your patience. I also want polite and friendly conversations, my apologies if my topic came off aggressive in any way. I can lack tact, but I do not do it on purpose.

Ok, so to get to your questions:

What pixel format are you using?

My DSLR camera captures images in 24bit format. I take my photos in RAW formats and sometimes RAW+ (A RAW + a JPEG Highest Quality). These photos are 14.6 Megapixels in size (4672x3104).

Using Silkypix (Photography development software) or Photoshop CS3, I crop my pictures to a 16:9 ratio, then I downsize my pictures to a 1920x1080 resolution. They are very sharp and nice.

I have spoken to a graphic designer friend, and have checked to make sure the pictures are all RGB and 24 bit. They all are by default, and I have never changed it. I have also tried changing my color profiles, etc.. put everything back to normal (default settings as they were good).

Here is an example of a picture I have Processed:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2880/12225164825_bb17e12911_o_d.jpg

As you'll notice, viewed at a 100% zoom level (in Microsoft Picture Viewer or any other viewer) the quality is pretty fine, the lines are sharp and the colors nice. But then try setting it as a wallpaper.

I believe you know what I am talking about anyways.

 What PPI are you using?

What puzzles me is that the PPI doesn't seem to change much either. I have used all these different PPI's: 72, 96, 150, 300, 600.

I have even saved the picture as a 16bitt TIFF which is supposedly the largest possible format, and loses no information or any quality as editing is done on the photo. Even with a 53MB Tiff file set as a desktop background, the pictures lose their sharpness and the edges get 'blurred' out with artifacts.

I have also done the test with different computers and devices; ranging from my Windows 8 Phone, an Ipad, and these PC's: 2x Windows XP SP3, 3x Windows 7 x64 and my Windows 8.1 Pro x64.

The result was that (with THE same picture I have provided you the link with - 1920x1080) with Windows XP and the Ipad, my picture set as a wallpaper would lose no quality, sharpness, colors, etc.. The Windows 7 PC's, my Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 PC all suffered from the loss of quality when the picture was set as a Wallpaper.

If I set 1 picture as a wallpaper for a long time; I would def keep the suggested "fix". But the problem is I set my computer as a showcase, and I can have a whole lot of pictures in random rotation. I often add and change them as well. I've been developing my photos in JPEG's for years as that's the easier format to provide to users online, or e-mail to contacts.

And now, to make sure that the issue isn't related to the WAY I process my photos (which it isn't because I would notice it in the Picture Viewer), you can take ANY picture from the web (that is originally the same native resolution as your monitor), set it as a desktop; and notice the loss of quality around the edges, 'artifacting', etc..

Again, I do not want to come across as rude or insulting, it is not my intent. But I do not really know why the latest evolutions of Windows need to provide compression to images set as backgrounds. Is it because having many images in rotation is too intense on the system? Or is it to make sure the OS runs stable on ALL platforms, including the ones that are much weaker in performance?

I mean, the point of Microsoft's recent activities seems to be about simplifying things for the end-user; but having to 'hack' the system to simply provide a compression-free background picture seems a little harsh on the user, it is my opinion. Please do not view this as an "attack" haha ;)

But I must also say that I have found out that by using PNG's, Windows does NOT compress the picture, and it appears perfect as a background. But the issue with that is imply a matter of time, I have thousands of pictures I would have to re-develop into PNG's, and simply developing photos is a long process, can take about 25 minutes or more for 1 picture alone. ..and now that all my pictures have always been processed into JPEG's since I've used Windows XP... *sigh*

..and the fact that the same picture, a 600KB JPEG is about a 7MB PNG.. having thousands of those.. well yeah.

I just figured newer OS's would have even more polish than older ones, as hardware and technology evolves. I have been enjoying Windows 8.1 a lot, everything is really polish, sleek and fluid, just like on my W8 phone. Everyone has also been commenting positive stuff when they see it and see how the OS works.

Anyhow, I appreciate your interest in the matter, I realize the answer is probably as simple as: "well use PNG's" but I also believe you see why having the compression of wallpapers removed would be recommended as well. I mean, at the moment, any 1920x1080 wallpaper is uglier than the actual picture.

Answer 3

edit: see next post of mine

Just to verify, when you open up your original image and the TranscodedWallpaper image directly in Your Favorite App(TM) (I used Paint.NET here), you're seeing a regression in quality?  I don't see that on my system.  I'd be interested in you clarifying that comparison (image vs transcoded image) vs the as-seen-on-desktop-itself.

Answer 4

Just to step back one minor bit: there is no deliberate extra compression nor downgrading going on here.  The system does need to import/re-export the file, but that's when that is done as much fidelity is kept as possible.  If you are seeing quality decrease, that's interesting and at face value probably is not intentional.

It feels rather deliberate from the OS, as the transcoded file size would lead to believe otherwise; it is reduced to approximately a 1/3 of the image being used. That's over 500 KB - 1 MB of lost image data! And that is also regardless of the file type; JPEG, TIFF, PNG are all affected likewise. Actually the bigger the file, the more the loss.

My images are already properly compressed as to limit the loss of quality and stay as small as possible. The original image file before being developed, is approximately 14-16 MB in size, once I've worked it all up, I can get s 1920x1080 as small as 600 KB - 1.5 MB in JPEG format with no visual loss of quality (any more and you would start seeing it). So that same image being compressed to a third of it's size is really drastic! 

A lot of sharpness is lost, smudging appears around the edges and especially where colors clash. In this case, I am using a red car hood as my example, simply because it is clearly visible. It is less visible in more neutral colors, like grey, black, etc.. but nonetheless the issue is pretty much visible on ANY picture set as a background image.

Keep in mind this issue affects ONLY the background wallpapers and the lock screen picture. When images are viewed ANYWHERE ELSE; Windows picture viewer, Photoshop, Lightroom, Paint, etc.. at 100% zoom level, they all look fabulous - the way they are supposed to.

Here is the full-size example of a comparison between the images:

http://imgur.com/L7JR0iu

Answer 5

Ooookay.  Part of my confusion here stems from this being a fairly "old" change that dates back to ~2008 or so.

Yes, the current final answer here is to use PNGs if you want this to be seamless.  That PNG path was explicitly added in Windows 8 for this exact purpose.

The exact code path you're going through does run through a probably needless-for-your-exact-usage quality shift during import.  That code path deliberately skips that step for PNG files.

I'll flag this for review in the future.  There may be some further optimization here to make power users such as yourself happier while still being attentive to the performance needs of the desktop.

Thanks for bringing this up.