JPEG 2000: which camera will support it? When?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Faughnan, Jan 28, 2004.

  1. There was a good discussion in 2001 on when cameras would support
    JPEG2000 [1]. Of course the expectation was late 2001 or early 2002.
    Also in 2001, Analog Devices was supposed to have a chip out.[2]

    Well, it's 3 years later. QuickTime 6x supports JPEG 2000 (iPhoto thus
    displays it). Photoshop plug-ins shipped in Feb. 2003.
    GraphicConverter (Mac) has two JPEG 2000 converters. The standard is
    well defined and the licensing has been set.

    The current Canon 6MPixel CMOS DIGIC sensor is all the sensor I need
    for my next camera (to replace my much loved G2). The other things I
    need to justify the buy are faster data paths in the camer, a (extra
    bucks) 4GB Hitachi microdrive, USB 2.0/Firewire outputs, and .... JPEG
    2000.

    I figure I should be able to get all of the above in the fall of 2004
    for somewhere between $500 to $800 US. Am I deluded by wishful
    thinking? Do we think JPEG 2000 (both lossy and lossless) on the
    camera is on the way soon?

    john

    www.faughnan.com/iphoto

    meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, digital imaging, digital camera, JPEG2K,
    JPEG2000, adoption, implementation, technology.

    [1] http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&rnum=5

    [2] http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01020601analogdevjpeg2000.asp
    Analog Devices Develops IC for JPEG-2000
    Analog Devices, Inc is developing a high-efficiency coding/decoding
    integrated circuit (IC) to support the Joint Photographic Coding
    Experts Group (JPEG) 2000, the next-generation international standard
    for image compression. Sample shipments are scheduled to start in the
    second quarter of this year, with chips for digital still cameras and
    printers marking the firm's entry into the image processing IC sector.

    Part-1 of the JPEG-2000 standard, the core portion defining
    encoding/decoding processing, was adopted as an international standard
    in December 2000. Digital still camera manufacturers are watching
    developments closely, recognizing that the new standard will replace
    existing JPEG technology. However, as the JPEG-2000 does not offer
    compatibility with the existing standard, manufacturers hesitate to
    adopt the format.

    The company is developing two types of ICs. The first will implement
    compression and decompression of image data under JPEG-2000,
    incorporating the wavelet conversion and entropy encoding circuits
    required. The more highly integrated second IC will single-chip the
    ARM7TDMI 32-bit reduced instruction set computer (RISC) microprocessor
    core from ARM Ltd of the UK, together with an interface and the first
    chip circuits. The firm had commercialized an image compression chip
    using wavelet conversion before commencing work on JPEG-2000.
     
    John Faughnan, Jan 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Forget JPEG 2000!
    It was just marketing hype.
    Standard JPEG is fine and will improve - JPEG 2000 is obsolete.

    The next JPEG will probably be JPEG+ (JPEG plus; .jpp) - unlike
    JPEG 2000 it will be backward compatible with today standard JPEG.

    Regards
    Guido
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Jan 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I don't really see why I'd care about jpeg-2000. At least, from my
    playing and what others report, there don't seem to be any particular
    benefits. Why is it important to you?
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 29, 2004
    #3
  4. []
    12-bit JPEG might be nice, though! Most of the benfits of raw without the
    size drawbacks.....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 29, 2004
    #4
  5. John Faughnan

    Ron Hunter Guest

    It does have many benefits, such as better compression, and better
    detail retention with less artifacting. However, it appears that it has
    been 'up the flagpole' for some time with very little in the way of
    salutes.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2004
    #5
  6. Oops, yes, forgot that. I've seen other unofficial jpeg extensions to
    handle it, and forgot it was official in 2000.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Well, that's just it; those benefits don't appear in the reports I see
    on it, or in my own little testing (I've got a number of programs that
    support it).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 30, 2004
    #7
  8. John Faughnan

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I have tested it somewhat and found that there are substantially less
    artifacts for a given compression level.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 30, 2004
    #8
  9. JPEG 2000 is the only potential standard I know of for lossless
    compression. It's more efficient than TIFF and it's a much better
    defined standard -- hence likely to be interoperable. The method of
    lossy compression provides much better retention of data with less
    artifact with smaller images than JPEG. It provides a wider dynamic
    range than JPEG.

    It's a real improvement. I'd like to see it.

    john
     
    John Faughnan, Jan 30, 2004
    #9
  10. []
    PNG offers all that, doesn't it?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 30, 2004
    #10
  11. John Faughnan

    Zol. Guest

    You can convert any Canon CRW file to jpeg2000 but why you should want to do that I have no
    idea as the format irself isn`t widely used and has limited appeal compared with other
    formats out there


     
    Zol., Jan 30, 2004
    #11
  12. John Faughnan

    Martin Brown Guest

    12bit classical JPEG is already available. It just isn't used in
    consumer goods.

    Regards,
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 30, 2004
    #12
  13. John Faughnan

    friend® Guest

    there is JPEG lossless as well, HP implementation.




     
    friend®, Jan 30, 2004
    #13
  14. I think it's not true that there are better choices now in use. Maybe
    in the lab.

    This thread has convinced me, however, that JPEG2000 desperately needs
    a marketing director. It does sound like a lot of knowledgeable photo
    people are not familiar with it. In the absence of market interest it
    is unlikely to be adopted.

    If I were the licensing bodies involved with JPEG2000 I'd be
    reexamining my strategy. For example, they may need to reduce or
    eliminate any of the current licensing fees on software
    encoder/decoders and look to make money only from hardware encoders.

    Based on the limited market knowledge or interest in JPEG2000 I won't
    look for it in a camera next year.

    john

    www.faughnan.com/iphoto

    meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, digital imaging, digital camera, JPEG2K,
    JPEG2000, JPEG 2000, adoption, implementation, technology
     
    John Faughnan, Jan 30, 2004
    #14
  15. Hmm, was I not clear enough?
    All what JPEG2000 needs is to be ignored!
    It is technically inferior to the current JPEG standard and its
    potential capabilities, which are far from being exploited today.

    Regards
    Guido
     
    Guido Vollbeding, Jan 30, 2004
    #15
  16. 12-bit JPEG might be nice, though! Most of the benfits of raw without
    the
    Yes, that was my point (deliberately understated) that you don't need to
    go to JPEG 2000 to get 12-bits. I am actually using a 12-bit JPEG decode
    in one of my applications....

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 30, 2004
    #16
  17. John Faughnan

    KBob Guest

    I tried it but found that it did little except to trade the "hard"
    JPEG artifacts for image softening, no real advantage IMHO.
     
    KBob, Jan 30, 2004
    #17
  18. John Faughnan

    Brad Guest

    You probably weren't clear enough because you understand neither JPEG2000
    nor English.
     
    Brad, Jan 30, 2004
    #18
  19. Standard JPEG is fine and will improve - JPEG 2000 is obsolete.

    In my tests JPEG 2000 gave better looking pictures at a given file size.
    Moreover JPEG 2000 can do more than 8 Bit (Maybe JPG can do this, too, but I
    did not see a converter that does it).

    When capturing RAW, Ill be saving the images in JP2 / 12 bit after some
    initial tweaking.

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, Jan 30, 2004
    #19
  20. John Faughnan

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Total nonsense. However, it IS being ignored, and I don't see that
    changing, so the question is moot.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 31, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.