jpeg and jpeg 2000

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

  1. Conrad

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    By the way, Photoshop CS2 could not open those German J2K files.
    Perhaps this is because I'm using my daughter's educational license.
    Obviously I need "Real Software" such as Irfanview's plug-in.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 28, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Conrad

    ASAAR Guest

    Yes, try Irfanview. Someone else recently wrote that it didn't
    have restrictions when opening J2K/JP2 files. If it also can't open
    the German J2K files that'll be worth knowing for anyone considering
    purchasing the plugin.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 28, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Conrad

    nailer Guest

    if you pay, Irfanview has a plugin for jpeg2000



    On 26 Jan 2007 17:57:38 -0800, Bill Tuthill <>
    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.
    #
    #GIF patents have expired in most countries, so perhaps web designers
    #who need transparency can just use GIF now.
    #
    #Sorry to return the topic to JPEG2000 (cough), but I have a question.
    #
    #Does Irfanview have a plug-in for J2K? If so I don't have it.
    #I'm still waiting for Photoshop to come up so I can look at the
    #op. cit. images from Photozone.de, yawn.
     
    nailer, Jan 28, 2007
    #43
  4. Conrad

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    By the way, PaintShopPro 9 opens these JP2 (JPEG 2000) files,
    and all of them are improved by the quick-enhance option.
    As usual, Canon DSLR is unable to produce ideal out-of-camera results.

    To reiterate, Photoshop CS2 could not open these JP2 files.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 28, 2007
    #44
  5. Conrad

    timeOday Guest

    IMHO it hasn't been widely adopted enough to be usable as an archive
    format. I want to use a format I KNOW will outlive my grandchildren.
    That is (normal) jpeg.
     
    timeOday, Jan 29, 2007
    #45
  6. Conrad

    Sachin Garg Guest

    But its not lossless, and my understanding is that lossless formats
    are preferred for archival. I am not very familiar with how
    photographers solve this 'archive format' questions as the situation
    is less than ideal. Most RAW formats are proprietary, which makes them
    even worse. From among the options, Jpeg2000 doesn't seems that bad.

    Is DNG preferred over camera's native RAW for archival? or is TIFF the
    choice?

    Just curious.

    Sachin Garg [India]
    www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info
     
    Sachin Garg, Jan 29, 2007
    #46
  7. Conrad

    Sachin Garg Guest

    Sachin Garg, Jan 29, 2007
    #47
  8. That is the prevailing agreement nowadays. If we're talking about
    institutions, a lot of them also tend to prefer non-compressed formats,
    from the point of view that bit-errors aren't as critical for those
    formats. A truth with some modification, in my opinion.

    For those that subscribe to the non-compressed idea and really think
    worst-case scenarios, 24bit Baseline TIFF (uncompressed) is a fine
    candidate. The header isn't overly complex and the pixel-representation
    is simply all the RGB-values put after each other, so if everything
    else fails, they are easy to extract.
    Noone really has a definitive answer, but my common sense tells me to
    avoid proprietary closed formats if possible and store archival copies
    in open formats only. For me, that's JPEG (if I haven't modified the
    photo) and PNG. If I was more paranoid, it would be PNG all the way.
    For non-lossy archival storage of just the pixels, JPEG 2000 seems a
    bad choice due to its licensing "we're pretty sure that you're allowed
    to support JPEG 2000, but we won't guarantee anything" disclaimer. I
    know that it compresses better than PNG, but not by much.
    They are two different things. One if the negative, the other is the
    print, to make an analog analogy. Personally I think I'd go for DNG.


    But all this is speculation. If we look around, there are millions, if
    not billions of images in JPEG, JPEG 2000, PNG, TIFF of all sorts, DNG,
    BMP and other formats. Chances are that all formats with such a huge
    number of images will be supported indefinitely by image viewers.

    The only things that can stop that seems to be either legal issues or
    world-wide civilisation collapse.
     
    Toke Eskildsen, Jan 29, 2007
    #48
  9. Barry Pearson, Jan 29, 2007
    #49
  10. Conrad

    timeOday Guest

    I don't feel compelled to archive in a lossless format. If it's good
    enough for me, it's good enough for them. I've never looked at others'
    old photos and thought, "gee I sure do wish they'd used a larger film
    format, too much grain." Nobody cares about such things.

    If anything, I think the smaller size increases the archivability
    because I can fit my collection on one DVD. In fact I think my personal
    collection has more value with only my favorite shots, than if there
    were thousands, watering it down. I think most of us who imagine that
    anybody will ever want to look through thousands upon thousands of our
    old shots are just flattering ourselves. Mostly it will just be
    relatives looking for pictures of themselves. If they want a nice shot
    of the Grand Canyon for their wall, I'm sure there will be plenty
    floating around.

    Of course if I worked at the National Archive and I was making the
    digital master of the Declaration of Independence it would be different.
     
    timeOday, Jan 30, 2007
    #50
  11. I look at my own old photos, and other peoples', and think things like
    that quite frequently.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 30, 2007
    #51
  12. Conrad

    Sachin Garg Guest

    Yes, I agree that all these formats will continue to be supported for
    a long time, but I think it will be harder to say the same about RAW
    formats of old cameras.

    Overall DNG looks like a good option to me for saving RAW, and
    Jpeg2000 for normal images. Maybe these are not perfect choices but
    still...

    Sachin Garg [India]
    www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info
     
    Sachin Garg, Jan 30, 2007
    #52
  13. Conrad

    Sachin Garg Guest

    Sachin Garg, Jan 30, 2007
    #53
  14. Barry Pearson, Jan 30, 2007
    #54
  15. Conrad

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Good points, I can't really argue.

    However I urge you to use 4:4:4 (1x1) chroma subsampling,
    or 4:2:2 if you really need to save space, rather than 4:1:1 (2x2).
    When it comes time to edit the images, your descendents will be
    glad you did. There is a huge difference in edge artifacting,
    and you pay a small price in size for 4:2:2.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 30, 2007
    #55
  16. Conrad

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Aren't corresponding DNG images much larger than Canon RAW, like 1.5x?
    I heard that. For me, the jury is still out on DNG.

    Thanks, your writeup and links therein were informative!
    Have you heard anything on performance issues?

    Microsoft could actually make money by selling this to camera vendors,
    if it has the performance advantage they say it does.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 30, 2007
    #56
  17. Conrad

    C Wright Guest

    I am not the one to whom your directed this question, but since I have both
    a lot of Canon raws and a lot of DNGs converted from the same camera I took
    a look. I found that, on average, my DNGs are actually smaller than my
    CR2s.
    Chuck
     
    C Wright, Jan 30, 2007
    #57
  18. Dunno about Canon; the main reason I converted my Fuji RAW files to DNG
    is that the DNG was less than half the size of the original.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 30, 2007
    #58
  19. You heard wrong. You can try out working with DNG easily and free for a
    few more weeks, with Adobe Lightroom, coming out of beta.
    With my Canon RAW files, I find the average savings on conversion to DNG
    to be about 20 %, not counting doing away with .xmp sidecar files,
    another conversion advantage for me.
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 30, 2007
    #59
  20. [snip]

    No. DNGs are typically smaller than the original raw files, although
    recent NEFs and CR2s are comparable. (In fact, DNG and CR2 both use
    JPEG lossless compression). Here are some examples:
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm#filesize

    The above (whole) page identifies typical benefits from DNG to various
    people.
     
    Barry Pearson, Jan 30, 2007
    #60
    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.