Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Sep 2010 23:04 UTC
Google A few months ago, Google open sourced the VP8 video codec as part of the WebM video project, to create a truly Free/free unencumbered video format for the web as an answer to the non-Free/free patent-encumbered H264 format. Today, Google launched a new image format for the web, WebP, which aims to significantly reduce the file size of photos and images on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 443397
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What? No love for JPEG2000?
by pabloski on Fri 1st Oct 2010 10:09 UTC in reply to "What? No love for JPEG2000?"
pabloski
Member since:
2009-09-28

Jpeg 2000? You mean the zombie? ;)

Seriously, someone here is using jpeg2000?

Reply Parent Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Jpeg 2000? You mean the zombie? ;)

Seriously, someone here is using jpeg2000?


Seriously, did you have some point with your comment? Why shouldn't someone use JPEG-2000? It is computationally more expensive, yes, but it also produces slightly less artifacting and smaller files than regular JPEG. If you are going to use a lossy format for archiving purposes you may as well go for JPEG-2000.

Reply Parent Score: 3

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

With disk space so cheap png is the real winner here for typical digital camera image storage. Kind of like flac vs mp3: you want to archive lossless and re-encode as needed for whatever new portable device you have.

Reply Parent Score: 3

troy.unrau Member since:
2007-02-23

I do, but I use it in lossless compression mode. In planetary science, it's a particularly useful format as it allows you to view segments very large images at different zoom levels simply by evaluating different chunks of the image file. This is a huge advantage of using the DWT, especially when the image sizes grow to be overly large.

eg: HiRISE images ( http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ ) come in at about 2.5 Gigapixels; jpeg2000 is perfect for viewing pieces of the image at different zoom levels.

That said, implementing jpeg2000 for web photos would be silly, as the web is currently designed. Pretty much all images on the web are viewed at 100% zoom; should that change, jpeg2000 would be useful. As it is, other algorithms are faster than the DWT used.

Reply Parent Score: 2