Slashdot Mirror
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
Sonny writes "In a few months time, internet users will be able to make use of the JPEG2000 standard which, its developers claim, enables web graphics to be downloaded much faster than is currently possible. This will not only make graphics-heavy web pages easier to download, it will also preserve image quality. The JPEG standard compresses image files which are then transmitted across the web faster than uncompressed files. Now, researchers at universities around the world have developed JPEG2000, the next-generation image-compression technology under the auspices of the International Standards Organisation. It is the first major upgrade of the standard since it first appeared in the early '90s. What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files. To take advantage of a JPEG2000, web browsers will need a Plug-In for either Internet Explorer or Netscape browsers. These free plug-in's are expected to be available later this year. The extension for the new files will be ".jp2"."
And only two years late, too!
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
Oh, and FP, BITCHES!
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
More pr0n, quicker.
If we aren't all using PNG right now, there's no way we're gonna be using jp2
I think we're just stuck with jpeg and gif for about the next 5-10 years, until browsers in general get reinvented.
Why .jp2??? Why not .jpeg2. This legacy DOS naming convention drives me nuts. Not even Windows is crappy enough to still require 8.3 filenames.
I still cringe when I see default.htm. It's a frickin' html file, name it properly.
-Ben
What's up with PNG? It seems that could blow JP2 away. PNG has 8bit alpha channel for cleaner transparency than GIF and smaller files than JPG.
So it is basically a shit more 64x64 subimages? Or is it 128x128 now?
Sure, it's cool and all, but will its new features compare to Lurawave? You'll need to download a special plugin to use this new jpeg2000 format - same deal with Lurawave? Why wait? :P
"JPEG2000 Standard! For when you needed that hardcore pr0n yesterday!"
The JPEG standard compresses image files which are then transmitted across the web faster than uncompressed files.
excellent, using jpeg2000 increases my bandwidth too!
There I was thinking they downloaded at the same speed but in less time!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I don't want to be a nay-sayer in any way, but I predict that this will catch on about as quickly as PNGs replacing GIFs. Most professional quality sites still use GIFs instead of PNG, even though tools such as Adobe's Imageready and Macromedia's Fireworks have supported the PNG format alongside GIFs for a while now AND most major browsers support PNGs natively (which wasn't the case not too long ago, with IE4, I believe).
.jp2 format doesn't require a plugin for 99% of the browsers out there, it won't be widely used, IMHO. Of course, I could be wrong and the .jp2 format might not even be meant for wide-spread adoption, and mainly for particular niche uses (such as viewing hubble images or replacing the need for lossless TIFFs).
Until the
Just my $0.02.
GIF is the best image format. It's small and it allows me to do animations.
Aren't JGPs only meant for porn?
What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files.
JPEG does support a lossless mode, it's just that no one uses it. To paraphrase, JPEG supports a lossless spatial algorithm that operates in the pixel domain. Some amount of prediction is used, resulting in about 2:1 compression, but the error terms for the predictions are included in the data stream (encoded using either Huffman or arithmetic coding), resulting in no net errors.
What's a lot more exciting is JPEG2000's use of wavelet compression, which isn't mentioned at all.
porn sites get more efficent, making more money, or will they lower their fees...
tough choice.
Runnin' On Empty
JPEG2000 Plugin for IE? More like an ActiveX control for IE. IE6 no longer supports Netscape Style Plug-ins. I'll never forgive MS for that.
It's for that reason I won't go past IE 5.01. I refuse to update to a browser that removes standard features. The sad thing is, I may not be able to enjoy JPEG 2000 because of that.
Hopefully Opera will, however...
"Derp de derp."
About time! JPEG 2000 was mentioned in Electronic Engineering Times many years ago. The next revision of Artwalker.com (where you explore the world though landscape paintings) will be completely displayed using JP2 because it has one vital characteristic: Images can be scaled in real time (via the server). For example, instead of displaying a thumbnail of say 50x60 pixels, and having the user click the thumbnail to view the full size image (say, 640x480), a JP2 image can be made to display as a percentage of the total size of the display window (or browser width) in a similar fashion to a vector graphic, such as that generated by Flash. This will be excellent for mobile devices with differing screen resolutions and make for some very cool ZOOM tools on browsers and in Photoshop etc. We have been waiting for this since 1996, when we launched Artwalker! Soon it will be time to get going on converting all our high resolution images to JP2. A lot of work!
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
See this bugzilla entry for Mozilla's jpeg2000 progress.
Doesn't seem too promising:
If you look at appendix L of the jpeg2000 draft, there are 22 companies who believe that implementing the spec may require use of their patents.
PNG still hasn't taken off despite being supported in all major browsers (now if only IE did proper alpha, any year now...), how much chance does an image format that requires third party plugins have?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Don't think that just because it causes the user to download a plugin that web developers will be afraid to use it. After all, just look at Flash.
However, I think it'll really catch on whenever the next versions of the browsers are released with standard support for JPEG2000.
It's time to dust off our old modems, people.
PR0N!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally my connection can keep up with my wrist. MUWAHAHAHAHAH
Mod me down, fine with me, it's my real karma I try to keep up.
And not native browser support? That doesn't make sense.
The year convention is obviously broke when the
project is late.
I thought this was a good comparasion between JPEG and JPEG2000.
I remember a similar promise made about LZW compression in the GIF standard by Compuserve. What is to stop these companies from requiring license fees at some arbitrary point in the future once the technology is widely used?
Additionally, there doesn't seem to be very much due dilligence performed in regards to other patents over the techniques utilized in the standard. Even if all of the known patents are licensed royalty-free, there exists the very real possiblity that a submarine patent will be exposed, after the standard is widely utilized, of course.
Of course, this won't matter once all of our PCs are replaced with sealed, SSSCA-compliant, government issued "convergence appliances"... :-)
I've been involved in JPEG 2000 for a while now, and come to the conclusion that..
:).
:) karma in offtopics.
A) It's an excellent codec, though computationally heavy
B) The design of the codestream along with JP2/JPX file format has a lot of potential to create a "new" type of image that isn't just a picture. Yes, you've heard this before, but this time it's built in at a codec level. In stream ROI's, very flexible reconstruction and compression controllable through great numbers of options - and that's only the codec (at a *very* rudimentary level
C) It won't succeed without a decent opensource, "IPR free" (as much as is possible) implementation.
D) Read C again. It's important
To this end, I've started (with support from others in the JPEG 2000 community), a JPEG 2000 Group (See http://www.j2g.org - It's very sparse at the moment, but if you're interested, bookmark it and come back in about a month). Tom Lane and IGJ have expressed no interested in JPEG2000, for various reasons (which I don't entirely disagree with, but I'd rather be proactive and try to correct flaws than walk away totally).
The aims of the JPEG 2000 Group are to create a public, open source (probably BSD license) implementation of "Part 1" (This is the codestream syntax, codec, and file format wrapper). We'll also provide a community JPEG 2000 resource. To facilitate this, we've already attained a Class C liaison with the committee. This grants all members the option of acquiring the standard free of charge. We also get a minimal channel back into the process to give opinions.
The point of this ever rambling post is this : We need members. The standard is large, and the support around it will be larger. We need volunteers who would be interested in assisting in the creation of the codec. Sadly, "Membership" is going to require some form of contribution and commitment to acquire copies of the texts you'll need - I hate this as much as you, but it was accept it, or don't get any copies at all (without $$$). If you're interested in contributing in any way (code, documents, testing, support), please drop by the at forum - Even if its only a passing interest, I'd be happy to go into more detail regarding the project (or just JPEG 2000 itself). I'd do it here, but I'd loose all my (low
So, rather than bitch about the lack of a free implementation and how late it is, and how it'll never get used, come and help out! You know you (might possibly | maybe | someday) want to!
anytime soon that is. To take advantage of a JPEG2000, web browsers will need a Plug-In for either Internet Explorer or Netscape browsers. I don't mind downloading a plug-in to get faster images. but the average user only knows plug-ins as the airfreshener glad makes. Not to mention will a company be willing to switch over to using this format since most average users won't see. Unless IE, netscape, mozilla, etc get support for it by default it won't be used to much.
web browsers will need a Plug-In for either Internet Explorer or Netscape browsers.
or some of us that compile our own code and use dynamic and static libraries, the change would be as transparent as recompiling libjpeg.
just another reason I like open source.
badness 10000
It's good to see the porn comments piling up. This is worse than the body count in a bad slasher flick.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Everyone is still using old formats like GIF and JPEG.
But there are other, more powerful formats.
For a non-descructive compression, the PNG format is fortunately getting more and more popular, although the late inclusion in Internet Explorer slows down its wide adoption.
But when it comes to a destructive compression, there's an excellent (and not new) format made by AT&T and called DjVu. It was one of the first wavelets-based format.
DjVu is really better than Jpeg. Images are better looking (more contrast, less pixels with odd colors), and files are way smaller. Plus you can smoothly zoom any DjVu image without getting big and ugly blocks.
DjVu has been available for a while as a plugin for common browsers.
There's a 100% free implementation of the format called DjVuLibre .
However, nobody uses it. I don't understand why. Some times ago, it may have been because compression was slow. But nowadays, it's no more a valid point.
People are enthusiast for Jpeg2000. But why would Jpeg2000 be adopted while DjVu has never been?
{{.sig}}
Now that everyone has broadband and can play streaming video.....
It's always good when the submitted story is more up-to-date than the site it links to. The current press release" on the site is dated August, 2000.
Could this story be submitted by an insider? Hmmm... I know, I know, Slashdot != "investigative journalism"
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
According to this pdf,
.9
the report compares 4 compression codecs, and found for a small sample found:
MEAN LOSSLESS COMPRESSION RATIOS (big is good)
------------------
JPEG 2000: 2.5
JPEG-LS: 2.98
L-JPEG: 2.09
PNG: 3.52
JPEG-LS is was usually the best, but PNG had a few really good sample that pushed its average up. Actually, these outliers appear important, because that is what really separates the codecs on this metric.
Lossless Decoding Times, relative to JPEG-LS (big is bad)
-----------------
JPEG 2000: 4.3
JPEG-LS: 1
L-JPEG:
PNG: 1.2
This doesn't make JPG2K appear too impressive. What it does offer, however, is features. Like Region Of Interest (ROI) coding, good lossy compression, random access, and other goodies that some people may really care about. The report claims that png doesn't do lossy encoding, which is news to me, but it does appear to be one of their major selling points for jpeg-2000 over png.
Now my page can have even less content!
check out the license, it's a very closed and proprietary format
Worked for a company by the name of Image Power Inc. They tried to use JPEG2000 as a business model since around 1987, they went tits up last year, wayyyy too many patent holders.(and not enough deal-closers, but that's another ball of wax entirely)
"If you're going through Hell, keep going." -Winston Churchill
Hey, I've implemented a JPEG-2000 codec using
a BSD-style license.
It's been tested at the MIT biodmedical department already for compression of medical images.
It's available at http://j2000.org/.
It would be nice to see this work in my favourite browsers.
Several things, besides simply "good compression."
JP2 uses wavelet compression such that an image is effectively compressed at various resolutions below the originally, independently. Not only does this allow a high level of redundancy removal (which is why wavelets are good in the first place) and thus high compression, but jp2 tags each of these sections (subbands) separately in the compressed file.
So what? Well, a file with all of these sections is effectively a losslessly compressed image. However, this file can be further compressed (loss-ily) by simply throwing out some of these tagged sections! That is, you can make a "lossless" thumbnail image by keeping all the lower resolution subbands. Or, you can get a lower-quality (but smaller) fullsize version by throwing out some subbands at each resolution.
Better still, this manipulation can be done without decompressing the original image. Simply using only certain tagged sections of the file.
Consider this possible application of all this: Digital Cameras. A camera could take images at full resolution and lossless quality until the memory card starts filling up. Then, gradually as more and more room is required, it could quickly reduce the size or quality of previous pictures to make room for new pictures. Thus, you always have "enough" room for more pictures, provided you don't mind the quality reduction.
Of course, there are numerous uses for web applications -- thumbnails and full-sized images could be the same file, provided the web server knows how to parse the image file. (Little or no computation necessary, just sending parts of the file)
Anyways, JPEG2000 is very very cool.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can honestly say Jpeg2000 will improve your sex life!
"Mmmm, one million times more porn! *gurgle*"
Am I missing the joke - is this some sort of overdue April Fool's joke? Did this story get sent here by Mallett's time machine from last week?
/. just regurgitate somebody's press release?
Or did
As far as I can tell with a quick google, nothing has been done with this standard since early 2000 (maybe that's why the standard name hasn't been updated, eh.) I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for widespread adoption any time soon...
Yeah, right... then web designers will just make bigger/more images and, thus, any savings gained by this codec will be moot...
.... Is that it was modded `insightful', i think we must have some very guillible moderators if they think using JPEG2000 will increase their bandwidth!
0xC3
aren't extensions dead ever since 8.3 died? what kind of crappy os still uses extension for file type determination?
oh... sorry... >:|
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
More importantly, why didn't they just name the damn file-type JPEG2. Now I've gotta say "jay-peg two thousand" or "jay-peg two kay" when I talk. JPEG2 would've been sufficient. Why do we have this millenium obsession, even though we're 3 years into it?
--I hate big sigs.
He said "server side" resizing. That's far different from client size resizing and it is a very important feature. The client requests the image in a certain size and compression and the server creates it from the high resolution image.
While you don't often see it "in the wild" as it were--except in some Japanese manga newsgroups where it's the standard since it's lossless--it's very often used when working with graphics. Unless you need to save with seperate layers, why use bulky formats like .PSD or .PSP when doing graphics work and needing to save your work losslessly, when .PNG is usually so much smaller? I save everything as .PNG for future work, and then when it goes up on the Web I can batch output crappier-quality .JPEGs.
So, the PNG format is a resounding success among those who work with images, and then we dumb it down to JPEG or GIF for the end users.
All that said, I don't see the JPEG2k standard really succeeding--now that more and more users are getting faster and faster connections, there's not that much need for the smaller filesizes. Combine that with the fact that users have to install a plugin to see them--and God only knows which browsers and what versions they may be using--and I don't see webmasters clamoring to adopt it, and if they don't adopt it in large numbers, the format will never catch on. So it's very iffy at the moment, IMHO, as to whether the new standard will ever replace the old--certainly not in 5 months from now, and probably not even in 5 years from now, since the need for file size savings keeps slowly evaporating.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Everybody should make it a practice to use 8.3 filenames when possible.
1. less bandwidth.
2. Easier to type. One time I had to download a new version of Netscape, and the file name was ns_release_browser_en_foober_fiddle_3.0.1x.tar.gz or something like that. Maybe there was a way to regex this, but sheesh! I had no desire to think about that, I just wanted to download the bloody file.
3. Backward compatability.
I realize that sometimes a longer file name is good, but sometimes people use them when they shouldn't. I always try to come up with something that fits in 8.3 without losing meaning, and I'm almost always successful. I cringe when I see people have named the file some big long gobbledegook like bobbys_8th_book_report.doc when bookrep8.doc would have done just fine.
Sure you'll need a plug in now. But IE 7.x probally won't.
Secondly not everyone has fast connections.
Veramocor
Why not jpg2. 3 digit extensions can be rather ambiguous.
Duh! If you click on that Bugzilla link it yelds this message:
Andrea
The extension for the new files will be ".jp2"
.jp2
I wonder what the Pope thinks about the file extensions being callled
Finally they use a 'from the [...] department' text that makes sense.
The jpeg2000 page that both links in the story refer to has not been updated in a while, as can be seen by going to the wayback machine page and typing in the url to get the revision history. The current page seems to have been last updated in October 2001. And this last edit seems little more than a book ad and background color change:) How is the statement "These free plug-in's are expected to be available later this year." backed up?
This will not only make graphics-heavy web pages easier to download
Oh great! Even more websites designed with the idea that Photoshop is a webdesign tool and that the best way to make a webpage is lots of massive images instead of text and styling.
Mumble mutter grouse.
Good thing it looks like it'll take ages to catch on.
Karma: T-rexcellent.
well, i tried some jpg2000 photoshop plugin - it wasn't really amazing. quite large files.
1) look like a FrontPage2000 template
2) have a GIF image?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I thought this was a good comparasion between JPEG and JPEG2000.
Good one. Thanks for the link.
Looks like JPEG2000 finally got things right for the human eye:
- Higher compression ratios just gently blur details, rather than creating artifacts. Losing the extra information leaves the part that DID get through intact.
- The text says the compression allows for progressive downloading. This implies that the coding scheme does something like working upward in spatial frequency - encoding the basic stuff first then sending progressively finer deltas. For a given compression ratio just stop the downloading (or file saving) when you have enough.
- The compression seems to match eye processing so well that highly compressed (100:1) images actually look BETTER than the basic image. The features important to the eye (facial stuff, especially eyes) gets through or even enhanced, while unnecessary detail - including sampling artifacts - gets selectively blurred out. Something like the soft-focus filter in portrait photography. The only thing in the samples that got noticably worse at high-compression is hair, which just gets a bit blurry. (Meanwhile, JPEG looked like it had pixelated measles.)
Of course the images selected for the demo could have been optimized for the compression scheme. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hells yeah! Faster porn downloads!
Unfortunately, one effect of better compression will be more bloat -- web pages with more graphics and more advertising. This is because with better compression, there is more information transmitted per byte, thus giving more value, so the decision about whether or not to include pictures tips in favor of more and bigger images. Thus the average size of a web page and all its components will increase.
If you think the images are valuable, as many web designers seem to for incomprehensible reasons, that is a good thing. But if you do not value lots of images, that is a bad thing. So, better compression harms those with slower links, those who detest advertising clutter, and those who seek concise information rather than flashy presentations.
(I am not opposed to better compression, just pointing out an unintended consequence.)
If there's any indication that this will actually be out in a few months, I missed it.
If there's anything indicating JPEG2000 support for Mozilla, The Gimp, Paint Shop Pro, or Photoshop in the near future, I missed it.
I've yet to see anything that indicates there are no more patent issues and that people can support this format without patent issues (Read "Can the Gimp ship with this?")
Regarding Exploer PNG support:
AlphaImageLoader Filter:
Displays an image within the boundaries of the object and between the object background and content, with options to clip or resize the image. When loading a Portable Network Graphics (PNG) image, tranparency--from zero to 100 percent is supported.
Just because I do miss it, I still see almost no support for the beloved fractal image format *.fif I think it's now part of LizardTech's line of image compression/fractal tools. If you think jpeg200 offers compression, then you missed the fif format completely.
No Zen is good zen
There was a dead link about "watermarking" on the page. Does this mean we'll be seeing "copy protection" built into images?
.png standard. Human eyes don't see blue well, just make it lossy (one time, saving again doesn't make it worse) in the blue spectrum.
I say we just refine the
~ Why is there no reason modifier for overrated posts?
I was meaning that the server will deliver only what the client required. My error for not being specific. I do know from the EE Times article that most Chinese (not Japanese) digital camera manufacturers are building JPEG 2000 capability into their cameras from scratch. Expect them to be major players soon! Be very nice to shoot images of ultra high resolution and do all kinds of real time scaling in the camera if you shoot a picture that is too high a resolution and need to free up memory. Oodles of potential for innovation!
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Nah, it'll probably make easy to download web pages more graphics heavy, if I know today's web designers...
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
I can't wait for the new IE exploit using the jpeg2000 activeX control (sense IE now doesn't support netscape style plugins).
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
Comparisons with png/gif history are NOT valid here, although such ARE usually a foolproof tao of the karma-gatherer ;). Those who make them are probably not aware of the difference in quality/size ratio between wavelet compression and the current (pathetic) jpeg. It is not only "beefed up" jpeg, people. It is qualitatively different, using completely different philosophy and algorithms so smart that the FBI people probably got them from aliens in exchange for not drilling their testicles. They lied, of course - but the aliens delivered.
What thrills me even more is the possible application of wavelet compression algorithms in 3D.
See this for a dramatic flash-based demonstration of advantages - notice that it says 4kb!:
http://www.luratech.com/index_e.html
LuraTech has been shipping a JPEG 2000 broswer plugin (and Photoshop plugin) for a while. I've had problems with their jp2 file format. It's a new and very complex standard so expect some startup pains. http://www.luratech.de/index_e.html
Dr. David Taubman was one of the authors of the JPEG 2000 spec. His book on JPEG 2000 is now available. He has also released a very nice SDK for compressing, decompressing, manipulating and streaming JPEG 2000. It's called Kakadu and you can read more at http://www.kakadusoftware.com/. The source code for Kakadu is packaged with the book. There are demo images and software at this site also.
Let's be honest, IE has a rubbish renderer, full stop. It's not just this.
Two things scream out at me. One, I can reliably set up layouts with nested tables which, under IE, display in a way which is indisputably incorrect. Two, we have a bunch of machines at work which muck about with several sites we've produced. Essentially, IE doesn't render the images right. Occasionally it doesn't render an image at all (rare but has happened, and it doesn't leave a placeholder because it doesn't realise it hasn't shown it up) until the image is clicked on or scrolled off the screen and back on. More commonly, it sticks a suprious transparency in place of white on some images, or even effectively makes the whole image slightly opaque. When there's an image background, that gets messy...
Bottom line, it's sloppy.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
In fact, an uncompressed file will usually be transmitted faster, since some links (especially modem connections) do compression themselves. So this statement is backwards!
You have an interesting point--bandwidth is getting more dear, now that the pyramid-scheme banner advertising revenue outfits have been going tits-up. However, I just don't see most website owners risking their livelihoods by implementing an image format which most of their customers, plugins or no, may not be able to read--particularly since so much of web layout is done using images these days instead of text.
Think about it--how many users are set to automatically download plugins as needed? Almost none because of security reasons. herefore, some active decision is needed on behalf of the user to actually install the plugin or not. What will be the user's reaction if he goes to the site of WidgetCo, doesn't know what to do with this dialogue box about installing stuff (especially if he's been told be friends or company that installing strange software can be dangerous, or if he's been molested by the likes of CometCursor), says "No", and gets a page of big X's where all the buttons and banners should be? Well, it might well be to go to the site of WidgetBiz instead to get his widgets there.
This is why I really don't see JPEG2k taking off. It's a risk most companies won't take--you don't want your users not being able to use your site. Look how long it took Flash to become as common as it is today--many years, and then only because it started shipping by default with Windows.
I have no doubt that IE7 will have JPEG2k support--poor and half-hearted support. As with most Microsoft products it'll probably take the until the second major release to get it right, so let's say IE8 will have fully implemented JPEG2k support out-of-the-box. How many years will it be until that's out? And how much further along will available bandwidth be by then?
I could well be wrong, but I just don't see this taking off. Unlike Flash did, it doesn't bring anything spectacularly new to the table--a few people have been talking about the visual effects you can get using wavelet images, but those same effects are common (if poorly implemented) Flash effects today, in addition to the many other effects Flash does. So that leaves us with the better compression over JPEG as its big marketing point...and I just don't see that being enough to get website owners to risk alienating end users. So *at least* until great JPEG2k support ships with IE out of the box, and that version of IE is common, I don't see JPEG2k going anywhere except into some niche markets.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
More importantly, does Konqueror support jpeg 2000? Thanks,
:-P
David
Isn't JPEG 2000 heavily patented?
I expect that that will be standing in the way of mainstream acceptance, and that open source browsers will get trouble.
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe the correct internal quote punctuation is a single quote (e.g., "...giant 'Space Lasers'.").
?sp
Yes this is karma whoring a little, but it's a good article
The reduction in artifacts is the real benefit IMO. Sometimes you just have to push the quality level up to ridiculous levels to get acceptable images with JPEG, and as the quality goes above around 90, the file size starts ballooning.
For a particularly excruciating example, see this image of Buddhist prayer flags against a plain blue sky from my recent holiday. (Blue skys seem to be particularly susceptible to artifacts.) IIRC, the qualitly level here is 85, and really, it is not acceptable. The trouble was, even at 85, the file was rather bigger than I wanted.
I used to hate computers, but then a server went down on me.
I hope they have added a metadata section where data like author, date, etc could be attached internally to the image.
I always thought it would be cool if your digital camera could include the settings (fstop, exposure time, ISO, etc, compression ratio) along with data, time and author directly in the image file.
Someone said:
"(*) I'm still annoyed that IE doesn't support
alpha-transparency though."
You answered:
"It does, you just have to use the IE-
proprietary AlphaImageLoader filter (it's a
CSS extension)."
Would someone please enlighten me as to HOW to turn on that "IE-proprietary AlphaImageLoader filter", please ?
Thank you !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Here's a summary of the jpeg2000 situation that I wrote up, but never made it into bugzilla:
Are the three extra 0's really necessary? why is it called JPEG2000 when the year 2000 was 2 years ago? why do people insist on stupid marketing hype names? why the f/* can't it just be called JPEG v2 or JPEG2? WHY? This is the problem with our world, just like iBook and easyJet, why do people have to come up with this out-dated, over-used, "oh I'm so arty" bull shit? It's not cool, its not fun. Names don't suddenly become boring and grey if you don't string words together or not capitalize the first letter. We're not writing code, and most of the people who do come up with these names are not really geeks so they don't have any excuses such as 'I never name variables with spaces' or 'I never capitalize names or 'i's'. Lots of systems don't have problems with spaces (especially Win. 9x where I see way to much of this) anymore so why do people do it? its just annoying to the point of making a perfectly sane person write a long post ranting about it.
I wouldn't mind normally, but if this is going to be used for the next 10 years, lets not give it a stupid name.
I'm sure this has already been mentioned but I couldn't be bothered to go through 200 posts.
Now I must prepare to be modded down
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I missed if there are any other new futures other than better compression.
but... surely .jpeg2000 would be more accurate
--- My dad's political betting
Does no one care how much more Britney pr0n this'll let you get? Come on people! Focus!
Not to be picky or anything,but ISO is not an acronym, its actually a latin prefix, meaning "The same". Iso is the short form for "The International Organization for Standardization", not "The International Standards Organisation".
Is JPEG2000 an open standard, or is it encumbered by patents? Will open source implementations be possible or does someone need to be paid licensing fees?
My bad.
I don't like Lossy compression
Yenc is a different matter entirely--it's taken off on USENET because it allows faster uploading and downloading for those who transfer massive amounts of binary data by about 33%. That's significant because the hardcore binaries group users leave their machines connected an ungodly amount of the time to their NNTP servers, sucking down pr0n by the thousands of JPEGs and mp3s and videos by the megabyte.
.jp2 images.
In such an environment Yenc encoding instead of UUencoding makes a *very* significant difference. However, the people who are hardcore USENET users are *not* the same as those who are average Web users. Huge difference. Yenc got so big so fast because the hardcore users have the clout in USENET--they're the ones who post most of the content, and if you don't Yenc, you don't get their content.
The Web is completely the opposite of this model--it's a lowest-common-denominator place, where the average end user is the target market and competition between websites is fierce. In the binary USENET groups there are few content providers and many leeches whom no one cares about, with the content providers (posters) having near-total conrol. On the Web there are many content providers, all vying to get as many eyeballs and consumers as possible--the average consumer counts big.
So, any content provider who switches to Yenc on USENET doesn't have to care at all about the dork who wants to keep using an outdated OE to access newsgroups--his audience is his fellow posters, all of whom know about and are starting to use Yenc too. On the Web, a content provider who switches to JPEG2k is risking financial ruin if too many of his customers use software that refuses to view
HUGE difference.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
"What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files."
I thought you could do that with current JPEG files by setting the quality to 100%.
Look, I'm a web consultant, I work with a lot of clients and see a lot of attitudes about new technologies, and basically the rule at the moment is that if it wasn't part of the standard distribution of Netscape 4.0 or IE 4.0, you can forget about it. Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x still have just barely enough market share that organizations refuse to abandon 100% support of them.
I think they'd still be trying to demand complete support of IE 3.0, market share be damned, except that it wasn't Y2K compliant. (I think it can still be run, but doesn't work right.)
If I went to a client and told them "use this new image format, it'll save you 90% of your present bandwidth usage, but all of your users will have to install a plugin," they'd fire me for incompetence and use the money they had been paying me to buy more bandwidth.
It doesn't matter how much better the new format is. If it requires 10% of users to install a plugin to use a site made with it, companies won't even consider it. When 95% of users have it preinstalled companies will think about it seriously, and companies that really *need* it will go for it. The rest will worry about losing 5% of potential customers and decide against it. When 99% have it preinstalled, they'll probably use it and not worry about it, unless it has been too long since the technology first came out and they've become convinced that there must be something wrong with it because nobody uses it, like DHTML. (DHTML is now catching on, but I still run into clients who insist that I musn't use it because it doesn't work... while telling me that HTML, Javascript and CSS positioning are just fine.)
Jpeg2000 : Image Compression Fundamentals, Standards, and Practice (Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, Secs 642)
by David S. Taubman, Michael W. Marcellin
The JPEG 2000 initiative is intended to provide a new image coding system using state of the art compression techniques, based on the use of wavelet technology. Its architecture should lend itself to a wide range of uses from portable digital cameras through to its use in advanced pre-press, medical imaging and other key sectors.
JPEG 2000 refers to all parts of the standard - current proposals are for 6 parts, with part 1 (the core) to be delivered and agreed as a full ISO International Standard by the end of the year 2000. (Background information). The parts are:
Part 1, JPEG 2000 Image Coding System
Part 2, Extensions (adds more features and sophistication to the core)
Part 3, Motion JPEG 2000
Part 4, Conformance
Part 5, Reference software (currently Java and C implementations are scoped)
Part 6, Compound Image file format (for pre-press and fax like applications)
There are now a number of existing links to material dealing with both the actual JPEG 2000 standard, and to its underlying technologies. We have divided these into:
Documents issued by the committee - the requirements for JPEG2000 standards, copies of documents up to the final Committee Draft and other agreed public information such as Press Release etc.
Documents from JPEG committee members - varying in scope from basic introductions to detailed technical arguments. These have the advantage that they have been written by our members, who are on the 'inside track'
Project related links - projects using (or researching) JPEG 2000 technology to deliver solutions
Software and test data - examples including reference software, test images and research results
Commercial companies - Companies supporting, or soon to support, JPEG 2000
Other commentary on JPEG 2000 - including press articles, third party input or contributions and related material
Background
Following the Maui meeting of JPEG in December 1999, agreement was reached on the first Committee Draft of the JPEG 2000 standard. This was a significant milestone in the standardisation process that will eventually culminate in an ISO International Standard, IS 15444 Part 1. The 'Joint' in Joint Photographic Experts Group refers to the link with ITU-T, and IS 15444-1 will also be an ITU-T Recommendation, T.800 - the texts will be identical.
At the Tokyo meeting of JPEG in March 2000, the Committee Draft was elevated to Final Committee Draft (FCD), and should be accepted for issue as a Draft International Standard in August 2000. This will be put out to all interested national bodies in ISO for vote, and should result in acceptance as a full International Standard (IS) in December 2000. It publication should then follow a few months later, at which time it may be purchased from your national standards body, ISO, or ITU-T.
JPEG make the text of their documents available on this Web site for potential users and implementors to evaluate. Please read the covering notes before downloading FCD for IS 15444-1. Please note that the FCD is the last version of the document that ISO currently permit to be made freely available from the Web site - we cannot respond to requests for the full text as this is copyright of ISO and ITU-T.
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
Hmm, seems to me that a LOT of sites use flash animation. Which, btw, requires a plugin.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
> What is the difference between LOCO-I and JPEG2000? Are they the 2
> different standards?
They are two completely different standards.
ISO/IEC 14495-1 is the JPEG-LS standard (which is based on LOCO) and
is a predictive scheme with lossless and near-lossless modes. It is
already an international standard.
JPEG 2000 is a proposal in development that is not yet a standard,
but is a wavelet based scheme that will include a fully reversible
mode using an integer wavelet so that lossless compression (or more
significantly, progressive to lossless) can be achieved.
In my experiments with medical images so far, JPEG-LS and JPEG 2000
provide comparable effectiveness of lossless compression (both much
better than original lossless JPEG (10918-1) with huffman coding).
JPEG-LS is very easy to implement and has very modest memory
requirements. There are several freely available implementations
already.
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
I can see pr0n sites switching to this image format, then bundling spyware with the plugin download for extra bucks.
Yet again, a filetype goes from reasonably self-explanatory (.jpeg2) to cryptic (.jp2) in order to fit into Bill's broken inherited-from-CP/M-80 filesystem. They merely follow in the fottsteps of their predecessors (e.g.
I guess I should be grateful that it's not
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I think JPEG2000 COULD take off. (notice I'm not saying would yet...)
There's a new market out there that is starved for bandwidth. The Wireless-PDA market. I think there is a wireless Internet Modem out there running at roughly 19kbps. A 5x reduction in size (that somebody else in this thread mentioned) would have a humungous impact on the ability to use these devices. If that's the case, then sites setting themselves up for PDAS would be quick to adopt JPG2k, assuming that the PDA's or Phones connecting to them could use it.
Lets say that happens. Let's say somebody like AvantGo takes advantage of it. It wouldn't take long for JPG2k to reach such popularity that the newer browsers start to support it.
It wouldn't be hard to do that. If JPG2k uses a different extension, then it'd be trivial to write code that assigns an alternative extension if the browser supports it. That'd be kind of neat, actually:
"if you want this site to come down faster, download the latest browser."
Hmmmmmm...
"Derp de derp."
See subject.
Lossless JPG is possible now, though the compression isn't very good with it.
- Based on globally incremental wavelets.
What this means is that partial downloads will still result in the best possible image for as many bytes as you've got.
This means for web pages images will appear to download faster (and not just come in scan lines at a time) and optimizing images for size is just a matter of chopping off the end of the file wherever you like.
With full quality, PNG is smaller than JPEG. However JPEGs get small fast without loosing much quality. PNG does have more compression though.
With a name like jpeg2000 it will probably be more accepted.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Now I'll be able to make out each strand of that arm-pit hair on the French porn I've been downloading!
Ok, now I gave a try at Jasper, a sample jpeg2k encoder. But I think I've done something wrong: $ ./jasper --input ~/test.jpg --output ~/test.jp2 --input-format jpg --output-format jp2 --verbose
JasPer Transcoder (Version 1.500.4).
Copyright (c) 1999-2000 Image Power, Inc. and the University of
British Columbia.
Copyright (c) 2001-2002 Michael David Adams.
All rights reserved.
For more information about this software, please visit the following
web sites/pages:
http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~mdadams/jasper
http://www.imagepower.com
To be added to the (moderated) JasPer software announcements
mailing list, send an email to:
jasper-announce-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To be added to the (unmoderated) JasPer software discussion
mailing list, send an email to:
jasper-discussion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please send any bug reports to:
mdadams@ieee.org
warning: color model apparently not RGB
decoding time = 1.960000
encoding time = 13.530000
$ ls -la test.jp?
-rw-r--r-- 1 foobar users 1815731 Apr 7 23:15 test.jp2
-rw-r--r-- 1 foobar users 1118155 Apr 7 23:14 test.jpg
any clues?
I've got IE6.0 on my system and I was able to sucessfully open .jp2 files with it. So its already supported so all you complainers about plugins to download Opera or Nutscrape
The point is well taken for the image format. I agree that it will take a long time for this to catch on like JPEG, GIF, and even PNG (all recent browsers can handle PNG, so it usually isn't a big problem to have PNG on a website instead of GIF).
However, I spent some time looking at the JPEG 2000 website. One of the articles there did a comparison between various formats. While JP2 obviously did better than JPEG (about 2.5 dB better signal-to-noise ratio at 0.5, 1, and 2 bpp), it surprisingly did slightly bettern than MPEG4. In addition, the JP2 compression engine worked about 3 times faster than the MPEG4 engine.
While the article mentions that the times are to be taken with a grain of salt (the compression engines are not necessarily as highly optimized as they could be), it is very possible that JP2 will be replacing MPEG4 as the compression algorithm of choice: same compression rate, slightly better quality, and 3 times faster!
Of course, we have to wait until we can directly compare optimized versions of each in side by side trials. However, we all know that codecs come and go a lot faster than image formats -- clicking "yes" when asked to download a new codec is a much simpler decision for me than clicking "yes" to accept a new browser plugin.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Didn't Corel support .wi (wavelet) format years ago? It didn't get very popular, now did it? And from what I've tried, wavelet does not offer 10-20x compression, more like 2-3x.
Can't forget to preview before posting... 8-P
Ok, now I gave a try at Jasper [ece.ubc.ca], a sample jpeg2k encoder. But I think I did something wrong:
I think that almost 80% increase in size is a little wrong for a codec that is supposed to kick others ass... any clues?We should have a server that sends the appropriate file type depending on the client request. So if Apache gets a request from an old version of Netscape, it'll send the picture compressed as .jpg/gif, if it gets a newer Mozilla, it'll send .jp2/png, if it gets a PDA, it'll send a 16-color greyscale, etc.
The server is probably a good place to do this (maybe with some mod_rewrite hack), since it could be responsible for caching heavily-requested conversions.
Anything like this exist? Similarly, I've always wanted to find some nice way to keep my photo-album online in the highest quality, but only send scaled-down images to casual visitors (as well as thumbnails). http://ids.sourceforge.net/ looks like it comes the closest to this kind of thing, but looks a bit too server-heavy (doesn't seem to support caching).
DjVuLibre includes a standalone viewer for X11, a browser plug-in (works with Netscape 4 and 6, Mozilla, Galeon, Konqueror, Opera), decoders, simple encoders, and utilites.
But not plugin for Internet Explorer, eh? tsk tsk :)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
- and found it to be an incredible codec.
:P), not to mention a more robust error handling and inclusion of data to tell if you 'cropped' a file
Some of the really really neat features are 'streamable' files- want a thumbnail? Yank off the first 1k of the file. Want an 8x10? Grab the next 500K. Want the full thing? Pull the remaining chunk.
Better still, you can 'order' the file- give an 8x10 as only 30% quality, which is quite good, with the first 10% of the file... or stream a bit more and get better quality. IE the more you can afford to wait, the better the image will look.
Of course there's also the compression and support for large coulor spaces (do we have to talk about file formats and function again?
Also, block size- jpg was limited to 8x8 chunks- j2k starts at 64x64.... so as you can imagine, a large bit of data can be compressed into a very small amount if you are sampling at 64x.
I can not WAIT till this codec is accepted by the industry- there is so much potention it's killed me not to have it available sooner.
Click Here
And be brought to a page where you can download a jp2 trial plugin for Photoshop, and using the dropdown menu you can get a plugin for your browser as well. (Assuming you use the right browser of curse
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Look, now we can do compressed, lossless graphics without GIF's! That means there's no more need for the Unisys LZW patent ---
We have the way out!
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
The web pages for djvu talk about the GPL'ed version including a decoder and a "simple bitonal (black-and-white) encoder" and a "very simple color encoder." This makes me wonder how the free encoders are and how they compare in compression and speed to other free encoders, such as those for jpeg and png.
A detailed positive answer to this question might make it worthwhile to more people to risk a couple hundred dollars of their time to try to install DjVu.
t.
What the hell, plugin for Photoshop costs 79$ ?! Does this mean that there'll never be FREE jpeg2000 encoder? That would kill jpeg2000 before it even gets started. I would never pay that much for image compressor, no matter how good it is.
We create a toolkit which reads and writes images etc. JPEG 2000 will give you better results on a particular type of image. It does compress the hell out of images, but typically the best you can get is 20% better. This 20% comes at a price however: all of the implementations we've seen are terribly slow. 10 to 20 times slower than any JPEG implementation. While time will allow developers to create faster algorithms, JPEG2k will probably die before it gets off the ground. And that's not the only thing. A lot of people keep their images in JPEG format and don't know how to convert or don't want to pay for tools to convert them. JPEG 2000 will benefit some people immensely. For most users it will not. I disagree with previous posts saying that bandwidth is becoming more precious. In a few years, bandwidth won't be the problem. Neither will storage. JPEG 2000 is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Longer extensions work just dandy with Windows, and have done for seven years - there's no reason why people shouldn't use the extension 'jpeg2'
Heheh.
:)
+3, much funnier than its parent
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
some poor old mainframes only like 8.3 filenames (when talking to PCs). They also only like 7 character variable/function names, which puts a bit of a dent into using the STL in C++. And they use EBCDIC which is not pretty. And you have to specify the length of a file before you create it, instead of using a sector based system. Am I sounding prejudiced enough yet? :-)
I like being able to open a .txt file and not have to worry that it is an executable which is going to trash my hard drive. Macintosh's DO HAVE file extensions (in the resource fork), they just aren't visible to the user unless you bring up properties. This is similar to windows' newbie mode, which is what all the virus spreaders (CEO, HR, marketing, etc.) within a company run in. One of the first things I do when setting up my new machine is to turn file extensions on, then go into the registry and change various settings to say "yes, I really mean it, show me the **** extensions".
/usr was where the user files were kept, way back when. Then one day, someone ran out of space on their root disk... The solution was to create a user called "bin", give it a home directory /usr/bin, and put the less important binaries there.
/usr. The only argument that still works in favour of /usr is making it a network drive. The people who do that will have to customize a bit when the rest of us drop /usr. I am sure they will hate me, both of them.
These days when disks are enormous and logical volume management ensures that you can just add whatever space is necessary where it is needed, we should get rid of
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
and what of the PNG format, the JPEG format is fine for transmission of small low quality images, all GIFs should be destroyed, and PNG is the best format in the world.
Software Freedom Day!.
Well, the source is not that wacked. Yes, it has some artifacts, but not all that much to justify an increase of 80%. Enough with talking, see it for yourself.
I'm not sure if this relates to the same problem with mp3's -> ogg's. In this case, the main problem is that we "transcode" from a lossy format to another, thence, we loose even more audio quality than a wav -> mp3 encoding, but still we have a smaller file size.
Think about it - porn sites:
1) Have loads of photographic images (as opposed to icons or things which need lossless compression)
2) Have high bandwidth costs related directly to said images (I assume; the PBS series on porn didn't cover enough of the economics of porn sites)
3) Have a bunch of users who will download and install any fool thing in order to see the pictures. (Hence the number of "dialer" scams you see in this market)
Flash didn't offer porn sites anything - most Americans aren't conditioned to animation porn - neither did png. Jpeg2000, however, could be very attractive to those sites run on a very small budget where bandwidth costs mean the difference between breaking even and not.
Porn sites drive a much larger portion of internet traffic than anyone wants to admit.
thanks. but it doesn't compile under MS VC6. lots of warnings, a few syntax errors, etc.. as the other poster noted - no comments at all.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Last time I checked (around october -01) LuraTech had the only actually usable fractal compression product: LuraWave.
While the images shown are impressive (better than classic JPEGs anyway) and the fractal zoom is neat - fractal compression has not (yet) turned out to be very usable. And it seems unlikely to be usable for generic image compression. Building a general purpose fractal image compression/decompression engine has turned out to be quite difficult: The results (of compression) vary a lot and it requires a lot of processing power during compression. Research on fractal compression seems to have slowed down quite a lot since the 90s. Some links.
Wavelets (used by JPEG2000) are much easier to implement and provide more predictable results in speed and compression results. Progressive coding is also a very usable feature (with wavelets it provides the best possible image with the data already transferred).
The JasPer project also has some free code (BSDish license) that implements a portion of the standard. If you're looking for image compression we got very good performance out of the software. We compressed a 2kx3k 24-bit Targa from 36MB down to 250kB with very little degradation (OK, so it's subjective) in about 9 seconds on an 800MHz PIII.
Derek
Don't Panic...
The following programs allow to convert/create JPEG2000 images under Windows.
http://www.xnview.com/
http://www.slowview.at/
The guy writes some working code and gives it away for free. The spec is the documentation for the standard, and anyone who can understand code can figure it out if they want to, but probably won't need to because he has an API, and you rip him a new one for this? That's harsh. This code is hardly 'uterly useless'. In fact, it's the only thing I've seen without Luratech all over it and a generous license to boot. Oh, mabye you work for Luratech. Sorry.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You could try it yourself, go to that nasa site blue earth or something, get a 50 MB tiff and compress it to a jpeg. Then compress the original and the jpeg with jp2k and see what the difference is. An increase in filesize of two doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Transcoding only works when the first encoder is very near to lossless.
t.
I found this site interesting a few months ago. The jpeg2k standard may have changed since then, but I doubt it. It concludes that jpeg2k doesn't have a better size/quality tradeoff than jpeg.
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Exactly. And taking this a step furthur, its completely redundant to append .exe to files in /usr/bin, its safe to assume they are executable binaries simply by their position within the directory tree. Do you append .lib to files in /usr/lib? No. Its redundant.
I've done some JPEG2000 reading, but I've not found any hits on animated jpeg's. I want a format that can compete with Animated GIF's.
Quality of JPEG saved from linux is really really shitty? I usually get much better results saving JPEGs from say, photoshop than from LinSux. I wonder what's up with that?
It seems that nobody knows this...
Morgan Multimedia (http://www.morgan-multimedia.com/JPEG2000) has already made an IE plugin...i took it quite a long time ago, and i'm using it happily...they've also made a Motion JPEG2000 codec.
Have done for at least 3 times as long under Unix and other systems (UCSD etc), but DOS/Windows set the pace with filetypes, and apparently still does. Sigh.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing