Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: DarkTable 1.2 Handles JPEG2000, Profiled Denoising

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,335

    Default DarkTable 1.2 Handles JPEG2000, Profiled Denoising

    Phoronix: DarkTable 1.2 Handles JPEG2000, Profiled Denoising

    DarkTable, one of the leading open-source programs for dealing with photography workflow and RAM image handling, has reached version 1.2. DarkTable 1.2 brings with it many features to benefit the open-source photographer...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM0NTQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    RAM image handling
    RAW image handling?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    105

    Default Re

    When there is VP8p, Jpeg 2000 support is not that important.
    And, ye, it's not "RAM image handling" but "RAW image handling".

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Nobody uses WebP - which isn't even useful at this point since it hasn't matured and under-performs - and JPEG2000 was requested by Darktable users, so it's important enough.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    769

    Default

    More image formats regardless how widespread or not (or via external libs) is always good.
    I like DarkTable, got my first RAW photos done with that one.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLexMachine View Post
    Nobody uses WebP - which isn't even useful at this point since it hasn't matured and under-performs - and JPEG2000 was requested by Darktable users, so it's important enough.
    Nobody uses JPEG2000 either, so they're both equally useless.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Nobody uses JPEG2000 either, so they're both equally useless.
    Incorrect. People do use JPEG2000 for specific commercial applications which is why JPEG2000 support was requested and implemented. Current information says that nobody except Google uses Google's WebP AT ALL because it's too immature and lacks features and performance that are on par with current JPEG compression tech. They are just now introducing features into the WebP testing code that JPEG has had for years and until WebP is more mature in features and performance, it won't be worth the trouble of implementing.
    Last edited by TheLexMachine; 04-09-2013 at 12:09 PM.

Posting Permissions

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