jpeg and jpeg 2000

David J Taylor wrote:

I must confess that my own use of PNG is for storing images compressed
without loss, and for the Web where transparency does not matter at all as
it is used for showing graphs. The format has no limitations as far as I
am concerned. But I think you are wrong to write PNG off as having failed.

Yes.

One thing I noticed lately, which surprised me very much, is that PNG graphs
are much smaller than the equivalent image in GIF. This despite PNG having
full-color support instead of GIF's pathetic 256 colors.

Bhogi wrote:

On the downside, J2K is not well supported yet. Many software packages
don't have it, and nobody in their right mind would put it on a website.

Take a look at the nice samples at the bottom of this page
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm

Klaus Schroiff is not one of those people I would have categorized as
"not in his right mind" but evidently I was wrong! ;-)

Toke Eskildsen 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.

On 26 Jan 2007 17:57:38 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

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.

Yes, one is included in Irfanview's downloadable plugin pack.
Until you are able to supply it with a registration code, you'll be
limited to working with 640x480 pixel .JP2 images.

If we go by that logic then any format included in any program means that
format is not a failure. Kind of a stupid way of defining failure. Failure
is failure when it isn't used by a vast majority of people and that makes
JPEG 2000, PNG and others a failure. Right along with the Binary RAW file
that you can save in PS which isn't really a RAW file (has nothing to do
with a digital camera RAW files), Pixar .PXR, as well as several others. If
they are not used en-mass they are a failure even if they were never
designed to be used en-mass (which JPEG 2000 and PNG do not qualify for
that).

ljc

--
Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
can assume that you bore me!




"David J Taylor"
wrote in message k...
Little Juice Coupe wrote:
It depends on your definition of fail. My definition of fail is that
it isn't used on the web much, it isn't readily supported by a lot of
programs.

What programs do not suppport PNG, which do support (for example) GIF and
JPEG?

I cannot think of any image editors which don't support PNG, so for me it
has not "failed".

David

Bill Tuthill wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
I must confess that my own use of PNG is for storing images compressed
without loss, and for the Web where transparency does not matter at all as
it is used for showing graphs. The format has no limitations as far as I
am concerned. But I think you are wrong to write PNG off as having failed.

Yes.

One thing I noticed lately, which surprised me very much, is that PNG graphs
are much smaller than the equivalent image in GIF. This despite PNG having
full-color support instead of GIF's pathetic 256 colors.

PNG can use *either* full 24-bit color, *or* indexed color like GIF.
Picking the color carefully can be an art (especially for things like
graphs, which are completely synthetic).

A GIF and a PNG in indexed color mode are pretty much the same size --
if they're both optimized decently by people who know what they're doing.

ASAAR wrote:
On 26 Jan 2007 17:57:38 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

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.

Yes, one is included in Irfanview's downloadable plugin pack.
Until you are able to supply it with a registration code, you'll be
limited to working with 640x480 pixel .JP2 images.

I don't think that's true; at least, it displayed one of those German
ones at a size much above 640x480 for me. I think maybe that limit is
only on *saving* a file.

Actually it doesn't mean PNG will go any further either. The odds favor a
totally new format pushed by Microsoft. They are already trying that for
digital camera image and JPG. I think if PNG was ever going to have made it
in the real world as I viable useful usable format that would have happened
with Microsoft IE7. It didn't and the odds favor it never happening.

You are right however that alpha transparency is very much needed on the
web. That however, doesn't mean PNG will ever be that format.

ljc

--
Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
can assume that you bore me!




"Toke Eskildsen" wrote in message
.. .
Little Juice Coupe 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.

PNG-support won't be removed from browsers anytime soon, so I don't
understand this "PNG is dead"-talk. I agree that Microsoft has been the
biggest reason for the slow increase in PNG's on the web, but they have
(finally) added real PNG support to their browser and there are easy
workarounds to get the alpha-transparency to work in IE6.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:12:26 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Yes, one is included in Irfanview's downloadable plugin pack.
Until you are able to supply it with a registration code, you'll be
limited to working with 640x480 pixel .JP2 images.

I don't think that's true; at least, it displayed one of those German
ones at a size much above 640x480 for me. I think maybe that limit is
only on *saving* a file.

You may be right. That was my first impression, but I could only
save files 640x480 or smaller, and without any other JP2 files,
could only open those small ones. But in a way what I said is
correct, since even if you have a large JP2 file and Irfanview can
load it, once it's in memory, in a sense it has no format other than
what Irfanview understands, and I'd be *very* surprised if Irfanview
doesn't have a single in-memory format that it works with, as
opposed to honoring the source files by having different in-memory
workspaces for JPG, JP2, TIFF, etc. In that sense Irfanview would
only work with formats such as JP2 when reading from or writing to
disk. So if one has no registered J2K plugin and is able to load
some large JP2 file, there's no good evidence that you ever worked
for hours editing that JP2 format file if you could only save the
edited memory image to an unrestricted format such as JPG, TIFF,
etc. I suppose after all of that editing you could trim the image
down to 640x480 (or smaller) and save it as a JP2 file, but that's
too "unreal" world for me to consider.

Yes it would depend upon image content and is possible, but I will be
very surprised if Jpeg gives compression better than jpeg2000 10% of
time for "same quality level".

Did you checked both images to be of roughly same quality?

PNG, on the other hand usually performs better on artificial images
like maps, graphs or cartoons etc... For natural images it is usually
worse than Jpeg2000.

Sachin Garg [India]
www.sachingarg.com | www.c10n.info

On Jan 27, 1:33 am, "Little Juice Coupe" wrote:
Not always. I have about 10% of the time had JPEG 2000 images larger than
JPEG. I have also had this happen with PNG which doesn't really compress all
that well.

How an image will compress and which format will do the best job is based on
the image and how well the creator of the program implemented it.

ljc

--
Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
can assume that you bore me!

"Sachin Garg" wrote in ooglegroups.com...



On Jan 25, 6:24 pm, "Conrad" wrote:
Hi,

I haven't much followed discussions about jpeg but recently got a
question about jpeg 2000. Person asked if/when it was useful to use
jpeg 2000.

I couldn't really couldn't help answer that beacause I only use jpeg
files and not jpeg 2000.

Is/are there situations or resons for use of jpeg 2000?

Jpeg2000 provides better compression and quality for saving images.

It also provides some extra features which might not be of much
interest to photographers, like a few progressive modes which allow for
example, effective browsing of huge images over internet. Such features
are more of use for large maps, satellite images etc...

Motion Jpeg2000 is also widely used now for digital cinema.

In cameras, one reason for Jpeg2000 not being popular can be that it is
slower than Jpeg. (Which means that batteries will run out sooner if
jpeg2000 is used instead of jpeg, and cameras will need faster
processors if they must allow quick successive shots). For more
specific reasons, I guess someone from camera companies can answer
better :-)

For working with large number of large files, it maybe slightly slower
than other options but if you are ok with the speed, I see no reason
why you should not use it if you need extra compression/quality. Afaik,
popular tools like Photoshop etc already support it.

Sachin Garg [India]
www.sachingarg.com|www.c10n.info