jpeg and jpeg 2000

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

  1. Barry Pearson, Jan 30, 2007
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. The standardly correct answer, write it to a FITS file.
    Never. Adobe has pulled the rug before. NEVER, EVER put your eggs
    in anothers basket.

    Close to perfect, is to put the raw files and a copy of the DCRAW
    source in a data set.
     
    Paul Repacholi, Jan 31, 2007
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. But the makers of J2K were charging aThe great thing about jpeg, from a non commercial software writer's point of
    view, is that there is a free open source coder/decoder available from the
    independent jpeg group.

    The University of British Columbia's JasPer project claims to be the same
    thing for jpeg 2000 but I've not yet found the time to give it a try. If
    anyone here has used JasPer I'd be interested to hear their experiences.

    It's my personal view that any file format which requires licence payments
    before you can use it is never going to make it into the big time. If you
    have to pay to use something then that is always going to restrict take-up
    and the way to achieve de-facto standard status is to get as big a take-up
    as possible.

    I think the only reason for GIF's short lived success was that there was, at
    the time, no viable alternative.

    Keith
     
    Keith Sheppard, Jan 31, 2007
    #63
  4. Are you therefore saying "Never put you eggs into Nikon's (Canon's ...
    etc) basket"? It is important to judge any alternative by the same
    criteria, and the camera manufacturers' alternative don't compare well
    with DNG!

    DNG is the only raw file format with essential features for archival
    purposes such as:
    - Openly published specification.
    - Global licence for anyone to use it - Adobe can't pull the plug.
    - Extra metadata for camera details to avoid the need for converters
    to have these.

    There are other things too:
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm#archiving
    Or put the DNG files and a copy of the DCRAW source in a data set.
    (dcraw supports DNG, of course).
     
    Barry Pearson, Feb 1, 2007
    #64
  5. Conrad

    l v Guest

    CS2 can, just not installed by default. The tech note references CS but
    I followed the steps on my CS2 installation on windows.

    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=329546
     
    l v, Feb 1, 2007
    #65
  6. Conrad

    Sachin Garg Guest

    No, I don't have any figures on that, I have been planning to look at
    it since some time but just didn't get to it, will let you all know
    when I have something.

    Sachin Garg [India]
    www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info
     
    Sachin Garg, Feb 1, 2007
    #66
  7. Conrad

    Sachin Garg Guest

    Sachin Garg, Feb 1, 2007
    #67
  8. Conrad

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Thanks, another thread covered this topic.

    Is the JPEG 2000 encoder installed by the Adobe Photoshop JP2 plug-in
    one of those studied by the Russian institute, op. cit. by Sachin Garg?

    How about the JPEG 2000 encoder supplied by default in PaintShopPro 9?
    I'm wondering if it is better or worse than the Adobe plug-in.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Feb 1, 2007
    #68
  9. FITS, GeoTIFF, DICOMED, come to mind. FITS *requires* that any valid
    FITS file is always a valid FITS file for reading.
    Interesting that (I think) 'blad dropped DNG as it could not deal with
    the geometric correction data they have in the raw file. FITS is well
    set to handle this sort of data, and does so with almost every new
    instrument.
    Why have the risk of the extra step?
     
    Paul Repacholi, Feb 2, 2007
    #69
  10. I had heard of the first 2, but not the 3rd. I wasn't aware that any
    of these were raw file formats, in the sense of being able to hold the
    raw image data from a CFA-based sensor. (In other words, still-
    mosaiced data rather than demosaiced or never-mosaiced data). In fact,
    I thought GeoTIFF is not a raw file format, but a metadata standard
    for use within TIFF files. Perhaps it can be used in TIFF/EP files
    (given that TIFF by itself is not a raw file format). But TIFF/EP is
    out of date and not sufficient for interchange and archiving of raw
    image data. (In effect, DNG is TIFF/EP brought up to date and made fit
    for those purposes).

    Can GeoTIFF be used in DNG files? (There are products that can store
    GPS data within DNG, but that is different, and I don't know how it is
    related to GeoTIFF).
    DNG files from any published DNG specification version remain valid,
    and remain covered by the global royalty-free license. Presumably the
    reason is similar to FITS - in decades to come, I will still want to
    be able to process my 2004/5/6/7 (etc) DNG files. (In fact, although
    the 2nd version of the DNG specification was published nearly 2 years
    ago, some current cameras still output 1st version files).

    [snip]
    I don't know what the problems with DNG were in this case. Is this
    much data? Is it standardised? If so, perhaps it will be in a future
    version of DNG. (I don't have any secret knowledge of what is in the
    next version of the DNG specification, probably in the 1st half of
    2007).

    [snip]
    I don't have an extra step. I have to ingest my raw images to my PC
    somehow, and I use the DNG Converter instead of some other product to
    do so. Increasingly, downloaders can convert to DNG as an option, for
    use with cameras that don't output DNG.
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm#ingest

    There are a number of benefits of DNG, other than archiving. Some
    people who DO have an extra step still find it worth it. But ...
    Whether particular photographers can get any benefit from DNG depends
    on their workflow and the tools they use. (The situation gradually
    improves over time). Not everyone can get immediate benefit yet, or
    enough benefit to counter any perceived disadvantages:
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm
     
    Barry Pearson, Feb 2, 2007
    #70
  11. Conrad

    John Turco Guest

    Toke Eskildsen wrote:


    Hello, Toke:

    Speaking of BMP, why isn't it considered a prime archival format, as
    TIFF and DNG are? I mean, it's lossless and universally supported, is
    it not?


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 3, 2007
    #71
  12. It's a good question. BMP is little more than a 54 byte header and
    image data, so that means no support for meta data or color profiles.
    Contrary to popular belief, BMP can be compressed, but normally BMP is
    used uncompressed. BMP's can't exceed 4GB, but the same goes for TIFF.

    I don't know The Reason, but I guess it's because of the meta-data and
    color profile thing.
     
    Toke Eskildsen, Feb 3, 2007
    #72
  13. It is listed in the US Library of Congress "Preferences in Summary"
    section, along with DNG and various forms of TIFF. (It has rather low
    order of preference!)
    http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_preferences.shtml
     
    Barry Pearson, Feb 3, 2007
    #73
    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.