jpeg and jpeg 2000

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Conrad, Jan 25, 2007.

  1. Conrad

    Conrad Guest

    Hi,

    I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
    question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
    jpeg 2000.

    I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
    files and not jpeg 2000.

    Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?


    Best,

    Conrad
    Camp Sherman, Oregon
     
    Conrad, Jan 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Conrad

    Cgiorgio Guest

    JPEG 2000 is an image compression technology that is completely different
    from conventional JPEG. It is using a "wavelet" model. In contrast to
    conventional JPEG it allows lossless compression and also compression of 48
    bit color files. You can open, modify and save it again without losses and
    you can store 48 bit film scanner output files in this format, I think it
    makes a difference if you end up with a 65 MB JPEG 2000 file instead of a
    145 MB TIFF file while preserving all the information in the file.

    completely different
    "Conrad" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
    > question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
    > jpeg 2000.
    >
    > I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
    > files and not jpeg 2000.
    >
    > Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Conrad
    > Camp Sherman, Oregon
    >
     
    Cgiorgio, Jan 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Conrad

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Conrad <> wrote:
    >
    > I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
    > question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
    > jpeg 2000.
    >
    > I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
    > files and not jpeg 2000.
    >
    > Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?


    The most useful use (sorry) for JPEG 2000 (J2K) would be lossless mode
    to archive images, replacing PNG or TIFF. This offers two advantages
    over PNG: 8-bit J2K is smaller than PNG, and most implementations of PNG
    do not offer a 16-bit option. Lossless J2K produces much much smaller
    file sizes than TIFF.

    J2K is better than JPEG at high compression, but at high Q values
    (low compression) J2K is not visibly superior.

    On the downside, J2K is not well supported yet. Many software packages
    don't have it, and nobody in their right mind would put it on a website.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of JPEG
    2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like PNG, another
    big format with promise then went the way of the Sony BetaMax and Circuit
    City's DIVX discs.

    ljc

    --
    Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
    correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
    can assume that you bore me!




    "Conrad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
    > question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
    > jpeg 2000.
    >
    > I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
    > files and not jpeg 2000.
    >
    > Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Conrad
    > Camp Sherman, Oregon
    >
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Jan 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    > Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of
    > JPEG 2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like
    > PNG, another big format with promise then went the way of the Sony
    > BetaMax and Circuit City's DIVX discs.
    >
    > ljc


    PNG is very much alive and well. Just because you don't happen to use
    it....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    > Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of JPEG
    > 2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like PNG, another
    > big format with promise then went the way of the Sony BetaMax and Circuit
    > City's DIVX discs.


    PNG was created mostly to get around patent constraints on algorithms
    used in GIF, which the current holder was being aggressive about; not
    mostly for the purpose of "fixing" anything else.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 25, 2007
    #6
  7. Conrad

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:24:51 -0800, Conrad wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
    > question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
    > jpeg 2000.
    >
    > I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
    > files and not jpeg 2000.
    >
    > Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Conrad
    > Camp Sherman, Oregon


    Yes. jpeg2000 allows lossless compression - I'm informed that that was in
    the jpeg standard as well, but not generally implemented. It also does a
    better job of compression under many circumstances. I attended a full day
    presentation on jpeg2000 several years ago - it seemed very promising -
    I'm surprised it has not been more widely adopted. There are some other
    spiffy features, but I no longer recall details.
     
    ray, Jan 26, 2007
    #7
  8. ray <> wrote:

    : Yes. jpeg2000 allows lossless compression - I'm informed that that was in
    : the jpeg standard as well, but not generally implemented. It also does a
    : better job of compression under many circumstances. I attended a full day
    : presentation on jpeg2000 several years ago - it seemed very promising -
    : I'm surprised it has not been more widely adopted. There are some other
    : spiffy features, but I no longer recall details.

    If I remember correctly, when it came out JPEG2000 was acknowledged as a
    nice improvement over standard JPEG. But the makers of J2K were charging a
    huge per copy licensing fee and most manufacturers and programmers were
    unwilling to pay to add this format to their cameras/editing
    software/display software/printing software/etc. So, without it being
    implimented from the start of the processing chain, any advantage was
    lost. And so for lack of support the entire thing generally fell by the
    wayside. It is my impression that the failure of J2K may have spurred (to
    some extent) the explosion of RAW use.

    Maybe, in the future when the owners of J2K become more reasonable with
    their licensing process, it might have a chance of becoming very popular
    among the photophiles (like an audiophile for photography), and could
    even be a median between RAW and JPEG, or maybe even replace RAW for some
    applications. (JMHO)

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, Jan 26, 2007
    #8
  9. Conrad

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Randy Berbaum <> wrote:

    > ray <> wrote:
    >
    > : Yes. jpeg2000 allows lossless compression - I'm informed that that was
    > : in the jpeg standard as well, but not generally implemented. It also
    > : does a better job of compression under many circumstances. I attended a
    > : full day presentation on jpeg2000 several years ago - it seemed very
    > : promising - I'm surprised it has not been more widely adopted. There are
    > : some other spiffy features, but I no longer recall details.
    >
    > If I remember correctly, when it came out JPEG2000 was acknowledged as a
    > nice improvement over standard JPEG. But the makers of J2K were charging a
    > huge per copy licensing fee and most manufacturers and programmers were
    > unwilling to pay to add this format to their cameras/editing
    > software/display software/printing software/etc. So, without it being
    > implimented from the start of the processing chain, any advantage was
    > lost. And so for lack of support the entire thing generally fell by the
    > wayside. It is my impression that the failure of J2K may have spurred (to
    > some extent) the explosion of RAW use.
    >
    > Maybe, in the future when the owners of J2K become more reasonable with
    > their licensing process, it might have a chance of becoming very popular
    > among the photophiles (like an audiophile for photography), and could even
    > be a median between RAW and JPEG, or maybe even replace RAW for some
    > applications. (JMHO)


    J2K isn't nearly as widespread in use as PNG. PNG is free to use. Could
    there be a connection? :)
     
    Paul Mitchum, Jan 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Well, most people don't use it. I would have done better had Microsoft taken
    a few moments to fully support the alpha transparency for the web. That is
    one thing very much needed for the web is alpha transparency. But, now it is
    just too late.

    ljc

    --
    Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
    correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
    can assume that you bore me!




    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:cz8uh.1186$...
    > Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    >> Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of
    >> JPEG 2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like
    >> PNG, another big format with promise then went the way of the Sony
    >> BetaMax and Circuit City's DIVX discs.
    >>
    >> ljc

    >
    > PNG is very much alive and well. Just because you don't happen to use
    > it....
    >
    > David
    >
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Jan 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Conrad

    Cgiorgio Guest

    "Paul Mitchum" <0m> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:1hsiofh.1xkdg7j11h8v63N%0m...
    > Randy Berbaum <> wrote:
    >
    >> ray <> wrote:
    >>


    >> If I remember correctly, when it came out JPEG2000 was acknowledged as a
    >> nice improvement over standard JPEG. But the makers of J2K were charging
    >> a
    >> huge per copy licensing fee and most manufacturers and programmers were
    >> unwilling to pay to add this format to their cameras/editing
    >> software/display software/printing software/etc.

    >

    Taken from the www.jpeg.org website, JPEG2000 document headings:

    Core coding system (intended as royalty and license-fee free - NB NOT
    patent-free)

    It is not offered under the GNU or BSD license, but there are no license
    fees to pay for implementing the basic features.
     
    Cgiorgio, Jan 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Conrad

    Sachin Garg Guest

    On Jan 25, 6:24 pm, "Conrad" <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
    > question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
    > jpeg 2000.
    >
    > I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
    > files and not jpeg 2000.
    >
    > Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?


    Jpeg2000 provides better compression and quality for saving images.

    It also provides some extra features which might not be of much
    interest to photographers, like a few progressive modes which allow for
    example, effective browsing of huge images over internet. Such features
    are more of use for large maps, satellite images etc...

    Motion Jpeg2000 is also widely used now for digital cinema.

    In cameras, one reason for Jpeg2000 not being popular can be that it is
    slower than Jpeg. (Which means that batteries will run out sooner if
    jpeg2000 is used instead of jpeg, and cameras will need faster
    processors if they must allow quick successive shots). For more
    specific reasons, I guess someone from camera companies can answer
    better :)

    For working with large number of large files, it maybe slightly slower
    than other options but if you are ok with the speed, I see no reason
    why you should not use it if you need extra compression/quality. Afaik,
    popular tools like Photoshop etc already support it.

    Sachin Garg [India]
    www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info
     
    Sachin Garg, Jan 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    > Well, most people don't use it [PNG]. I[t] would have done better had
    > Microsoft taken a few moments to fully support the alpha transparency
    > for the web. That is one thing very much needed for the web is alpha
    > transparency. But, now it is just too late.
    >
    > ljc


    I must confess that my own use of PNG is for storing images compressed
    without loss, and for the Web where transparency does not matter at all as
    it is used for showing graphs. The format has no limitations as far as I
    am concerned.

    But I think you are wrong to write PNG off as having failed.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Conrad

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Cgiorgio <> wrote:

    > "Paul Mitchum" <0m> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:1hsiofh.1xkdg7j11h8v63N%0m...
    > > Randy Berbaum <> wrote:

    [..]
    > >> If I remember correctly, when it came out JPEG2000 was acknowledged as
    > >> a nice improvement over standard JPEG. But the makers of J2K were
    > >> charging a huge per copy licensing fee and most manufacturers and
    > >> programmers were unwilling to pay to add this format to their
    > >> cameras/editing software/display software/printing software/etc.

    > >
    > > J2K isn't nearly as widespread in use as PNG. PNG is free to use. Could
    > > there be a connection? :)

    >
    > Taken from the www.jpeg.org website, JPEG2000 document headings:
    >
    > Core coding system (intended as royalty and license-fee free - NB NOT
    > patent-free)
    >
    > It is not offered under the GNU or BSD license, but there are no license
    > fees to pay for implementing the basic features.


    <http://jpeg.org/jpeg2000/j2kpart1.html>

    "Part 1 also includes guidelines and examples, a bibliography of
    technical references, and a list of companies from whom patent
    statements have been received by ISO. JPEG 2000 was developed with the
    intention that Part 1 could be implemented without the payment
    of licence fees or royalties, and a number of patent holders have waived
    their rights toward this end. However, the JPEG committee cannot make a
    formal guarantee, and it remains the responsibility of the implementer
    to ensure that no patents are infringed."


    PNG, of course, is free of patent and licensing encumbrances. And it's
    basically badass: <http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/>
     
    Paul Mitchum, Jan 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Conrad

    Bhogi Guest

    Bhogi, Jan 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Not always. I have about 10% of the time had JPEG 2000 images larger than
    JPEG. I have also had this happen with PNG which doesn't really compress all
    that well.

    How an image will compress and which format will do the best job is based on
    the image and how well the creator of the program implemented it.

    ljc



    --
    Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
    correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
    can assume that you bore me!




    "Sachin Garg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > On Jan 25, 6:24 pm, "Conrad" <> wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
    >> question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
    >> jpeg 2000.
    >>
    >> I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
    >> files and not jpeg 2000.
    >>
    >> Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?

    >
    > Jpeg2000 provides better compression and quality for saving images.
    >
    > It also provides some extra features which might not be of much
    > interest to photographers, like a few progressive modes which allow for
    > example, effective browsing of huge images over internet. Such features
    > are more of use for large maps, satellite images etc...
    >
    > Motion Jpeg2000 is also widely used now for digital cinema.
    >
    > In cameras, one reason for Jpeg2000 not being popular can be that it is
    > slower than Jpeg. (Which means that batteries will run out sooner if
    > jpeg2000 is used instead of jpeg, and cameras will need faster
    > processors if they must allow quick successive shots). For more
    > specific reasons, I guess someone from camera companies can answer
    > better :)
    >
    > For working with large number of large files, it maybe slightly slower
    > than other options but if you are ok with the speed, I see no reason
    > why you should not use it if you need extra compression/quality. Afaik,
    > popular tools like Photoshop etc already support it.
    >
    > Sachin Garg [India]
    > www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info
    >
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Jan 26, 2007
    #16
  17. It depends on your definition of fail. My definition of fail is that it
    isn't used on the web much, it isn't readily supported by a lot of programs.
    PNG was supposed to be for web use and offer alpha level transparency.
    Microsoft is the one that killed it. Opera and Firefox have supported more
    of PNG than MS ever did. But, since they have most of the market share with
    IE designers saw little reason in using a format that most web surfers could
    use. That is still a problem.

    Having a hand full of people use it does not a success make. Even the fact
    the Macromedia Fireworks uses it for a native format for the program doesn't
    really matter in the end. JPEG 2000 and several other formats it is a nitch
    format with very little real world use. Unlike TIF, JPG, GIF, PSD (to a
    lesser extent).

    ljc


    --
    Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
    correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
    can assume that you bore me!




    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:WPiuh.1409$...
    > Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    >> Well, most people don't use it [PNG]. I[t] would have done better had
    >> Microsoft taken a few moments to fully support the alpha transparency
    >> for the web. That is one thing very much needed for the web is alpha
    >> transparency. But, now it is just too late.
    >>
    >> ljc

    >
    > I must confess that my own use of PNG is for storing images compressed
    > without loss, and for the Web where transparency does not matter at all as
    > it is used for showing graphs. The format has no limitations as far as I
    > am concerned.
    >
    > But I think you are wrong to write PNG off as having failed.
    >
    > David
    >
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Jan 26, 2007
    #17
  18. Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    > It depends on your definition of fail. My definition of fail is that
    > it isn't used on the web much, it isn't readily supported by a lot of
    > programs.


    What programs do not suppport PNG, which do support (for example) GIF and
    JPEG?

    I cannot think of any image editors which don't support PNG, so for me it
    has not "failed".

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Little Juice Coupe wrote:

    > Well, most people don't use it. I would have done better had
    > Microsoft taken a few moments to fully support the alpha
    > transparency for the web. That is one thing very much needed for
    > the web is alpha transparency. But, now it is just too late.


    That is a contradiction. As it seems safe to assume that the web still
    needs alpha transparency and since there is no readily available and
    widely websupported alternatives to PNG, it follows logically that it
    is not too late for PNG.

    PNG-support won't be removed from browsers anytime soon, so I don't
    understand this "PNG is dead"-talk. I agree that Microsoft has been the
    biggest reason for the slow increase in PNG's on the web, but they have
    (finally) added real PNG support to their browser and there are easy
    workarounds to get the alpha-transparency to work in IE6.
    --
    Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
     
    Toke Eskildsen, Jan 26, 2007
    #19
  20. Conrad

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Little Juice Coupe <> wrote:
    > Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of JPEG
    > 2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like PNG, another
    > big format with promise then went the way of the Sony BetaMax and Circuit
    > City's DIVX discs.


    ???

    Yahoo.com uses PNG for all their stock market graphs.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 27, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    940
    Martin Brown
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. certsnsearches

    Exiff-jpeg and jpeg

    certsnsearches, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,296
    Jim Townsend
    Jan 7, 2004
  3. Sockmonkey

    jpeg 2000 and metadata

    Sockmonkey, Oct 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    298
    Matt Ion
    Oct 27, 2004
  4. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,284
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  5. Paul D. Sullivan

    Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation

    Paul D. Sullivan, Jan 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    830
Loading...

Share This Page