jpeg and jpeg 2000

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?


Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

JPEG 2000 is an image compression technology that is completely different
from conventional JPEG. It is using a "wavelet" model. In contrast to
conventional JPEG it allows lossless compression and also compression of 48
bit color files. You can open, modify and save it again without losses and
you can store 48 bit film scanner output files in this format, I think it
makes a difference if you end up with a 65 MB JPEG 2000 file instead of a
145 MB TIFF file while preserving all the information in the file.

completely different
"Conrad" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ps.com...
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?


Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

Conrad wrote:

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?

The most useful use (sorry) for JPEG 2000 (J2K) would be lossless mode
to archive images, replacing PNG or TIFF. This offers two advantages
over PNG: 8-bit J2K is smaller than PNG, and most implementations of PNG
do not offer a 16-bit option. Lossless J2K produces much much smaller
file sizes than TIFF.

J2K is better than JPEG at high compression, but at high Q values
(low compression) J2K is not visibly superior.

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.

Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of JPEG
2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like PNG, another
big format with promise then went the way of the Sony BetaMax and Circuit
City's DIVX discs.

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!




"Conrad" wrote in message
ps.com...
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?


Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of
JPEG 2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like
PNG, another big format with promise then went the way of the Sony
BetaMax and Circuit City's DIVX discs.

ljc

PNG is very much alive and well. Just because you don't happen to use
it....

David

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of JPEG
2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like PNG, another
big format with promise then went the way of the Sony BetaMax and Circuit
City's DIVX discs.

PNG was created mostly to get around patent constraints on algorithms
used in GIF, which the current holder was being aggressive about; not
mostly for the purpose of "fixing" anything else.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:24:51 -0800, 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?


Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

Yes. jpeg2000 allows lossless compression - I'm informed that that was in
the jpeg standard as well, but not generally implemented. It also does a
better job of compression under many circumstances. I attended a full day
presentation on jpeg2000 several years ago - it seemed very promising -
I'm surprised it has not been more widely adopted. There are some other
spiffy features, but I no longer recall details.

ray wrote:

: Yes. jpeg2000 allows lossless compression - I'm informed that that was in
: the jpeg standard as well, but not generally implemented. It also does a
: better job of compression under many circumstances. I attended a full day
: presentation on jpeg2000 several years ago - it seemed very promising -
: I'm surprised it has not been more widely adopted. There are some other
: spiffy features, but I no longer recall details.

If I remember correctly, when it came out JPEG2000 was acknowledged as a
nice improvement over standard JPEG. But the makers of J2K were charging a
huge per copy licensing fee and most manufacturers and programmers were
unwilling to pay to add this format to their cameras/editing
software/display software/printing software/etc. So, without it being
implimented from the start of the processing chain, any advantage was
lost. And so for lack of support the entire thing generally fell by the
wayside. It is my impression that the failure of J2K may have spurred (to
some extent) the explosion of RAW use.

Maybe, in the future when the owners of J2K become more reasonable with
their licensing process, it might have a chance of becoming very popular
among the photophiles (like an audiophile for photography), and could
even be a median between RAW and JPEG, or maybe even replace RAW for some
applications. (JMHO)

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

Randy Berbaum wrote:

ray wrote:

: Yes. jpeg2000 allows lossless compression - I'm informed that that was
: in the jpeg standard as well, but not generally implemented. It also
: does a better job of compression under many circumstances. I attended a
: full day presentation on jpeg2000 several years ago - it seemed very
: promising - I'm surprised it has not been more widely adopted. There are
: some other spiffy features, but I no longer recall details.

If I remember correctly, when it came out JPEG2000 was acknowledged as a
nice improvement over standard JPEG. But the makers of J2K were charging a
huge per copy licensing fee and most manufacturers and programmers were
unwilling to pay to add this format to their cameras/editing
software/display software/printing software/etc. So, without it being
implimented from the start of the processing chain, any advantage was
lost. And so for lack of support the entire thing generally fell by the
wayside. It is my impression that the failure of J2K may have spurred (to
some extent) the explosion of RAW use.

Maybe, in the future when the owners of J2K become more reasonable with
their licensing process, it might have a chance of becoming very popular
among the photophiles (like an audiophile for photography), and could even
be a median between RAW and JPEG, or maybe even replace RAW for some
applications. (JMHO)

J2K isn't nearly as widespread in use as PNG. PNG is free to use. Could
there be a connection? :-)

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.

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 ...
Little Juice Coupe wrote:
Never, it is a dead format. Very few people every made much use of
JPEG 2000. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. Just like
PNG, another big format with promise then went the way of the Sony
BetaMax and Circuit City's DIVX discs.

ljc

PNG is very much alive and well. Just because you don't happen to use
it....

David