new jpeg2000 format

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob Smith, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. Bob Smith

    Bob Smith Guest

    I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using a
    scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
    which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
    jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc. I
    haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or not.
    in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down to
    1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
    common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
    anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
    files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from my
    photo printer.

    Bob
     
    Bob Smith, Apr 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    "Bob Smith" <> wrote:

    > I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using a
    > scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
    > which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
    > jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc. I
    > haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or not.
    > in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down to
    > 1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
    > common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
    > anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
    > files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from my
    > photo printer.
    >
    > Bob


    QuickTime has a JPEG 2000 codec.

    As I understand it, the gains compared to a very good JPEG codec are
    small. Try running your JPEGs through a program that optimizes the
    Huffman coding and strips away application data. You could drop a lot
    of excess baggage without altering a single pixel. Experiment with
    different encoders and decoders too. Some are much better than others.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Apr 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob Smith

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <>,
    Bob Smith <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using a
    >scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
    >which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
    >jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc. I
    >haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or not.
    >in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down to
    >1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
    >common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
    >anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
    >files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from my
    >photo printer.
    >
    >Bob
    >
    >



    If you are scanning/photographing just for Ebay your image file can be
    10's of KBytes and very compressed color. 8 Bit color is all you can use,
    and that's what jpg does. J2K is (can be) a lossless compression and
    is useful for more serious work, but fast web pages need small images.

    If you are doing general scanning and photography J2K is a fine
    archive format, but you'll use any one of several tools to make a copy
    that is optimized for web browsers when you post something on
    Ebay. Irfanview does it on Windows, and it's free.

    If you want to buy a camera to take shots for the web, buy a used one
    on on ebay. Just about any name-brand camera with 1.5MB or greater,
    with a Macro setting will do fine.

    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    adykes at p a n i x . c o m
     
    Al Dykes, Apr 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Bob Smith

    Don Guest

    I wouldn't recommend JPEG2000 for long-term archiving of photos. As you
    have already discovered, few applications can handle it. It seems to offer
    few advantages over JPEG, TIFF or 16-bit TIFF..

    Don


    "Bob Smith" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using

    a
    > scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
    > which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
    > jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc.

    I
    > haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or

    not.
    > in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down

    to
    > 1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
    > common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
    > anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
    > files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from

    my
    > photo printer.
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >
     
    Don, Apr 8, 2004
    #4
  5. >I wouldn't recommend JPEG2000 for long-term archiving of photos. As you
    >have already discovered, few applications can handle it. It seems to offer
    >few advantages over JPEG, TIFF or 16-bit TIFF..
    >


    This was just discussed here in the "RAW" thread. Obvious advantages of 16
    Bit JP2 over JPG: 3*16 Bit color resolution. Obvious advantages of 16 Bit
    JP2 over 16 Bit TIFF: much smaller files. 16 bit JP2 files with
    _appropriately_ selected_ compression factor also tend to be smaller than (8
    Bit) JPG files, especially when the original is noisy.

    I use Thumbs plus 2000 to handle JP2 files. A great tool.

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, Apr 8, 2004
    #5
    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. K2

    LuraWave JPEG2000 images are blurry

    K2, Jun 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    107
    Views:
    9,617
    Guido Vollbeding
    Jun 17, 2004
  2. Steve

    Can JPEG2000 image contain embedded audio ?

    Steve, Mar 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    450
    Bill Tuthill
    Mar 22, 2005
  3. Sachin Garg

    Jpeg2000 in firefox, finally

    Sachin Garg, Apr 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    5,860
    Bill Tuthill
    Apr 16, 2007
  4. Thomas Richter

    Exif Metadata in JPEG2000: Request for Comments

    Thomas Richter, Jan 9, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,413
    Roy G
    Jul 25, 2008
  5. Sachin Garg

    Jpeg vs Jpeg2000 vs HD Photo - Results

    Sachin Garg, Feb 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    756
    Thomas Richter
    Feb 9, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page