.. It used to say.. " To win the race you need: 1. A Lot of Money 2. A Good Design 3. A Great Team....And you don't need the last two!"
I've done solar car racing. It isn't a poor man's sport. Michigan gets more help from industry and more money than 70% of the rest of the teams out there combined. They regularly spend *millions*, in a 'collegiate' sport where small donations from local sponsors are the norm. It usually costs somewhere in the $250k+ range to field a minimal team. In addition, the rules are arcane, about what you can and can't do to gather energy, use for materials, etc. - in attempts to balance the teams...It isn't like there is enough energy in the equation to make a practical solar car..and there certainly isn't an economic argument yet. It's a weird, and highly unbalanced 'sport'.
Kind of hard to give them kudos for being the ones who spent the most money.
Well, definitely wrong on one point - JPEG-2000 does not have any patent or IP encumberances, and it's a free open standard. Try looking up the free open source implementations such Jasper, JJ, etc. All the members of the JP2K committe had to sign releases - Just so that there would be no such issues in JP2K as there were in MP3, etc.
The wavelet transform is NOT proprietary nd no one is trying to make money off it.. It's included free in Quicktime, you can download free browser plug-ins from Lurawave and Morgan Multimedia, and, if you want, you can use the library from the guy who was the primary influence in the standard, Kakadu - which is what most of the commercial products in the space are using. It's included in Photoshop as well..
JPEG-2000 is being used in Digital Cinema as the standard for movie theaters, it is widely adopted in security and surveillance, it was just adopted for use in UWB for HDMI / DVI. It is the defacto standardin satellite imaging - it's ued in Google maps, and Google Earth. The standard isn't forgotten, it's just really gaining traction now with the rise of hi-res imagery.
No, it isn't. You're wrong. Read the jpeg.org website.
All participants in the JP2K standards process signed rights to all IP involved in the process over to the standards committee for unencumbered use.
There are currently dozens of companies using free software to code and decode JP2K.
JP2K is now the standard for Digital Cinema, and is a rising, open standard in the security and surveillance markets.
What about using the new version of JPEG, for 'digital negatives'?
There are no royalties, no licencing, it has 2x to 5x the compression efficiency, and it's inherently multiresolutional. One file, all resolutions, no reprocessing.. It supports hundreds of component layers, data embedding, lossless encoding..
So.. why would you use some new proprietary Adobe format?
Uncompressed digital video out of a decoder, even including framing data, blanking data, and so on, 'only' consumes 27MB/s.
A standard digital video bus from the decoder, like ITU-656 is used, which is 8 bits wide, and runs at a consistent clock rate of 27MHz. It uses a 4:2:2 color space, which is actually only 16 bits of gamut information.
So, uh, yes, there's enough bandwidth on USB 2.0 at 480Mbit/s, even though USB does not support isochronus streams, like video well.
Graffiti tagging is not art. It's someone who damages the works of engineers, city planners, other muralists and artists. In as far as I can see it's a far cry between making a building, a train, or a bus stop, and 'signing' your name on it.. Just because you don't put the effort in to do something really constructive, doesn't mean that writing your name on everything you see makes you creative.
It's somewhat equivalent to scrawling you name over top of a Renoir, and saying you've created a new work of art. It's obvious you haven't - you've simply defaced another's work.
.. and it's the past performance of their bloated, ad-ridden, resource, and file association grabbing spyware-masked-as-a-media-player that was the previous incarnations of their product that drives the negative connotaions surroundning them. I sincerely doubt that they will be able to overcome the stigma. Every single experience my company has had with using Real player has been an absolute nightmare from start to finish, and we have vowed not to install it on anything, if it can possibly be avoided. Installing it is almost like catching some incurable viral wasting disease..
Recently, a large company that our company does work with announced to us they would be basing future video transmission on the Real format. Everyone on our side of the conference table starting laughing at them - we thought they had to be kidding. They agreed with our assessment of the media player market, but confided that this wondrous announcement had come from higher up in the echelons, and they were told to make it work...
Didn't think they were out to *get* me. I don't feel personally slighted. Just thought they were interested in news. It was linked to a freshly minted release on the JPEG website. It seemed quite timely. Just surprised that nothing was done (and so were those at the committe mtg as well.).
Sorry if it seemed like a rant.
.. And was rejected. The exact story, and I posted it because we were in committee discussing it.
Someone else posts it, and it's news?
I really thought that whomever arbitrates this, was interested in content, not in particular authors. changes my idea of how this forum works.
Bit more elitist than I thought.
I'm sitting in the JPEG2000 committee meeting in Boston right now, and beleive me, they are ensuring that, same as the intent at the start of the process, JPEG2000 does not have any patents being applied against the protocol for profit!
Really. There isn't going to be a JPEG2000 with licencing issues.
Our company sells video transaction auditing systems to large retailers, recording all transactions and video in the store, correlating it all in a large database system.
We use our own network video appliances that compress the video streams as still images using wavelet-based compression. Image rates are based on the context of the images in the environment - alarms, check cashing, cash drawer open, etc.
The compressed images are then stored in a distributed database across multiple servers as necessary, with an aggregate viewpoint for recall.
We don't back up to tape in general, because of the inherent problems with nearline storage, and the ever decreasing cost of HD space. Since we have context for all the images, the real value is in the recorded image , and what it's related to.. So you store only what you need to at high frame rates / quality, long term..
Anyway.. email me if you'd like me to expound on this for a few hours.. 8)
Slashdot Mirror
.. It used to say.. ..And you don't need the last two!"
" To win the race you need:
1. A Lot of Money
2. A Good Design
3. A Great Team..
I've done solar car racing. It isn't a poor man's sport. Michigan gets more help from industry and more money than 70% of the rest of the teams out there combined. They regularly spend *millions*, in a 'collegiate' sport where small donations from local sponsors are the norm. It usually costs somewhere in the $250k+ range to field a minimal team. In addition, the rules are arcane, about what you can and can't do to gather energy, use for materials, etc. - in attempts to balance the teams. ..It isn't like there is enough energy in the equation to make a practical solar car..and there certainly isn't an economic argument yet. It's a weird, and highly unbalanced 'sport'.
Kind of hard to give them kudos for being the ones who spent the most money.
Well, definitely wrong on one point - JPEG-2000 does not have any patent or IP encumberances, and it's a free open standard. Try looking up the free open source implementations such Jasper, JJ, etc. All the members of the JP2K committe had to sign releases - Just so that there would be no such issues in JP2K as there were in MP3, etc.
The wavelet transform is NOT proprietary nd no one is trying to make money off it.. It's included free in Quicktime, you can download free browser plug-ins from Lurawave and Morgan Multimedia, and, if you want, you can use the library from the guy who was the primary influence in the standard, Kakadu - which is what most of the commercial products in the space are using. It's included in Photoshop as well..
JPEG-2000 is being used in Digital Cinema as the standard for movie theaters, it is widely adopted in security and surveillance, it was just adopted for use in UWB for HDMI / DVI. It is the defacto standardin satellite imaging - it's ued in Google maps, and Google Earth. The standard isn't forgotten, it's just really gaining traction now with the rise of hi-res imagery.
Check it out!
No, it isn't. You're wrong. Read the jpeg.org website. All participants in the JP2K standards process signed rights to all IP involved in the process over to the standards committee for unencumbered use. There are currently dozens of companies using free software to code and decode JP2K. JP2K is now the standard for Digital Cinema, and is a rising, open standard in the security and surveillance markets.
You're right..should have stressed that more..Lossless profile guaranteed support is the point to carry away here.. along with the smaller file... 8)
What about using the new version of JPEG, for 'digital negatives'?
There are no royalties, no licencing, it has 2x to 5x the compression efficiency, and it's inherently multiresolutional. One file, all resolutions, no reprocessing.. It supports hundreds of component layers, data embedding, lossless encoding..
So.. why would you use some new proprietary Adobe format?
Uncompressed digital video out of a decoder, even including framing data, blanking data, and so on, 'only' consumes 27MB/s. A standard digital video bus from the decoder, like ITU-656 is used, which is 8 bits wide, and runs at a consistent clock rate of 27MHz. It uses a 4:2:2 color space, which is actually only 16 bits of gamut information. So, uh, yes, there's enough bandwidth on USB 2.0 at 480Mbit/s, even though USB does not support isochronus streams, like video well.
From FW Depot, and Micronet are now out..
o du cts_id/657i num_raid.htm
http://fwdepot.com/thestore/product_info.php/pr
http://www.micronet.com/products/plat
They take 5 IDE drives, and cost about $1200 for the case, supply your own drives..
Front panel setup, and a lot of internal intelligence.. Seems like a good entry level external solution.
Graffiti tagging is not art. It's someone who damages the works of engineers, city planners, other muralists and artists. In as far as I can see it's a far cry between making a building, a train, or a bus stop, and 'signing' your name on it.. Just because you don't put the effort in to do something really constructive, doesn't mean that writing your name on everything you see makes you creative.
It's somewhat equivalent to scrawling you name over top of a Renoir, and saying you've created a new work of art. It's obvious you haven't - you've simply defaced another's work.
.. and it's the past performance of their bloated, ad-ridden, resource, and file association grabbing spyware-masked-as-a-media-player that was the previous incarnations of their product that drives the negative connotaions surroundning them. I sincerely doubt that they will be able to overcome the stigma. Every single experience my company has had with using Real player has been an absolute nightmare from start to finish, and we have vowed not to install it on anything, if it can possibly be avoided. Installing it is almost like catching some incurable viral wasting disease.. Recently, a large company that our company does work with announced to us they would be basing future video transmission on the Real format. Everyone on our side of the conference table starting laughing at them - we thought they had to be kidding. They agreed with our assessment of the media player market, but confided that this wondrous announcement had come from higher up in the echelons, and they were told to make it work...
Uh.. you do know it supports multi button mice right? Just plug one in, you get context menus, etc. on right click..
And there is a defined list of standard key substitutions for menu items as well, stuff that is application dependent is generally variant.
Just FYI.
Didn't think they were out to *get* me. I don't feel personally slighted. Just thought they were interested in news. It was linked to a freshly minted release on the JPEG website. It seemed quite timely. Just surprised that nothing was done (and so were those at the committe mtg as well.). Sorry if it seemed like a rant.
I'm sitting in the JPEG2000 committee meeting in Boston right now, and beleive me, they are ensuring that, same as the intent at the start of the process, JPEG2000 does not have any patents being applied against the protocol for profit!
Really. There isn't going to be a JPEG2000 with licencing issues.
Been done, and our company is already doing it.. The security industry has to deal with this sort of thing already..
Our company sells video transaction auditing systems to large retailers, recording all transactions and video in the store, correlating it all in a large database system. We use our own network video appliances that compress the video streams as still images using wavelet-based compression. Image rates are based on the context of the images in the environment - alarms, check cashing, cash drawer open, etc. The compressed images are then stored in a distributed database across multiple servers as necessary, with an aggregate viewpoint for recall. We don't back up to tape in general, because of the inherent problems with nearline storage, and the ever decreasing cost of HD space. Since we have context for all the images, the real value is in the recorded image , and what it's related to.. So you store only what you need to at high frame rates / quality, long term.. Anyway.. email me if you'd like me to expound on this for a few hours.. 8)