Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Ubuntu's Firefox May Gain JPEG 2000 Support

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,329

    Default

    I'm sure all distros would consider shipping a patch if one existed.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    I'm sure all distros would consider shipping a patch if one existed.
    I wouldn't be so sure of that. Some distro's like openSUSE/SLED and RH/Fed err on the side of caution when it comes to items that may cause potential legal issues.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dopehouse View Post
    Does other OS software like GIMP and co support JPEG 2000 too? Who needs JPEG 2000?
    NASA likes to release big images from Mars in JPEG2000.
    http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/jp2.html

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    Regarding JPEG 2000, it has some advantages over JPEG, eg. alpha transparency. The Wikipeda article has all details.
    The trouble is, very little actually supports the alpha transparency feature. In fact, ImageMagick actually aborts with an assertion failure if you try loading a transparent JPEG2000 image, and I don't think it's the only program with this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by b15hop View Post
    Tell me.. Why bother having a Jpeg 2000 format if no one uses it? This should have been done AGES ago...
    Well, JPEG 2000 isn't really any better quality-wise than JPEG, it's much slower (especially the open source implementations), and it's patent-encumbered. Why would it see widespread adoption?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,718

    Default

    because you are wrong. Jpeg2000 is A LOT better than jpeg.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Features *shrug* Seems to be better than JPEG mostly on limited-bandwidth scenarios. If you're free to use as much space as you want for the images, difference is negligible.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,718

    Default

    >Compared to the previous JPEG standard, JPEG 2000 delivers a typical compression gain in the range of 20%, depending on the image characteristics. Higher-resolution images tend to benefit more, where JPEG-2000's spatial-redundancy prediction can contribute more to the compression process. In very low-bitrate applications, studies have shown JPEG2000 to be outperformed[2] by the intra-frame coding mode of H.264. Good applications for JPEG 2000 are large images, images with low-contrast edges — e.g., medical images.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    >Compared to the previous JPEG standard, JPEG 2000 delivers a typical compression gain in the range of 20%, depending on the image characteristics. Higher-resolution images tend to benefit more, where JPEG-2000's spatial-redundancy prediction can contribute more to the compression process. In very low-bitrate applications, studies have shown JPEG2000 to be outperformed[2] by the intra-frame coding mode of H.264. Good applications for JPEG 2000 are large images, images with low-contrast edges — e.g., medical images.
    It also takes ten times longer to decompress than normal JPEG, at least with the open-source implementations. I'm not exaggerating - I actually tested this:

    [aidan@yarrow 4 tmp] 0$ identify test-in.jpg
    test-in.jpg JPEG 1920x1200 1920x1200+0+0 8-bit DirectClass 863kb

    [aidan@yarrow 4 tmp] 0$ time convert test-in.jpg test-out.pnm
    real 0m0.276s
    user 0m0.171s
    sys 0m0.045s

    [aidan@yarrow 4 tmp] 0$ time convert test-in.jp2 test-out.pnm
    real 0m2.138s
    user 0m1.725s
    sys 0m0.161s

    (This is Jasper, since that's what ImageMagick uses. Unfortunately, it looks like the other library OpenJpeg is just as slow. OpenJpeg 2.0 may be faster, but it's still in the alpha stage.)

    Unless you're downloading a very big image to a very fast PC on a very slow connection, I'm not convinced it's worth it.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Why would image conversion rate have any significance as to whether it should be adopted or not? Surely the only important part is how fast it's rendered.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Why would image conversion rate have any significance as to whether it should be adopted or not? Surely the only important part is how fast it's rendered.
    Unless graphics cards have gained hardware JPEG 2000 support without me noticing, rendering the image requires converting it to an uncompressed format - which is what those commands are testing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •