JPEG 2000: which camera will support it? When?

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

[]

12-bit JPEG might be nice, though! Most of the benfits of raw without the
size drawbacks.....

David

 

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.

 

Oops, yes, forgot that. I've seen other unofficial jpeg extensions to
handle it, and forgot it was official in 2000.

 

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).

 

I have tested it somewhat and found that there are substantially less
artifacts for a given compression level.

 

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

 

[]

PNG offers all that, doesn't it?

Cheers,
David

 

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

 

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

Regards,

 

there is JPEG lossless as well, HP implementation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I tried it but found that it did little except to trade the "hard"
JPEG artifacts for image softening, no real advantage IMHO.

 

You probably weren't clear enough because you understand neither JPEG2000
nor English.

 

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

 

Total nonsense. However, it IS being ignored, and I don't see that
changing, so the question is moot.