| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/10/2004 11:06:50 AM · #1 |
I have been waiting for tools to mature a bit in their handling of JPEG2000. JPEG2000 is recognized as superior in quality for a given compression factor to regular DCT JPEG.
I have had to clean up my hard disc, and I've finally decided to take the plunge and start using JP2 primarily. One problem is deciding on a compression factor. It seems in Breezebrowser, you have to set the quality level to "3" to get decent compression (1MB or less files for my 6 MB dRebel.) Other programs use different scales. I wish there were a standard way to specify compression. It makes it a lot more work to experiment to find a compression value that works.
My question. Are you using JP2? What program are using to convert from RAW to JP2? What compression value do you use (or what are the guidelines you use for an acceptible file size (not for posting, but for keeping a copy you can view and print.
(Note: I am deleting my CRW files, but I always have at least 2 archival copies on CD. So no bits are hurt by this. ;-)
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 07:18:01 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/10/2004 07:20:12 PM · #3 |
Well, probably not until my camera supports it. And I have to read more up on it, does JPEG2000 support more than 8 bit colour?
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 07:24:56 PM · #4 |
I use it to archive photos and artwork in Photoshop CS into lossless jp2. I personally love it.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 07:33:33 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Well, probably not until my camera supports it. And I have to read more up on it, does JPEG2000 support more than 8 bit colour? |
Yes, it supports 16 bit color, or 48 bit total. Which is one good reason to use it.
I don't think you'll see cameras supporting it for some time--though I am not sure why (or why it hasn't happened already)
But if you use RAW or TIFF, it makes sense to convert to it rather than JPG. Or at least that's my contention. I would have done it earlier, but until recently, apps seemed somewhat slow loading JP2, and it's still not supported by all apps, including PSE (I am hoping PSE3 does support it!)
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 07:34:53 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by PerezDesignGroup:
I use it to archive photos and artwork in Photoshop CS into lossless jp2. I personally love it. |
For lossless encoding I use PNG. Have you compared that to JP2? |
|
|
|
10/11/2004 01:00:28 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by PerezDesignGroup:
I use it to archive photos and artwork in Photoshop CS into lossless jp2. I personally love it. |
For lossless encoding I use PNG. Have you compared that to JP2? |
I personally haven't but luckily, others have. :D Check all the way at the bottom where users start talking about PNG vs Jpeg2000.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2004 03:49:20 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Hmmm...nobody? |
I think this may be the problem.
Regardless of how good JP2 is, if it's not popular (ie. the people I send it to can't view it) then it's no use to me. I'm sure I don't need to cite betamax as an example here. :-)
As soon as it's supported in popular applications/hardware that everyone has, I'll certainly jump on the bandwagon.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2004 05:27:17 AM · #9 |
This is the first time I've even heard of JPG2000. A name that sounds remarkably similar to Video 2000 (another video tape format that managed to flop less spectacularly than betamax while being similarly superior).
As the others have said it's not something I would consider using until it's supported not only in my own applications but in the mainstream applications present on other people's PCs. In particular that means that Internet Explorer is going to have to support it before it's worth looking into.
For now JPG remains VHS.
John
Ps. While PNG is certainly smaller than other lossless formats such as TIFF it's far from small. |
|
|
|
10/11/2004 05:33:39 AM · #10 |
| I'll have to check this JPG2000 out, if its lossless compresion its a great way to archive the RAW files, they take up so much space. |
|
|
|
10/11/2004 05:51:41 AM · #11 |
I'm no expert on RAW - I only just started using it myself - but presumably if you convert from RAW to JPG2000 you'll lose all the exposure information that is stored in the RAW file? I don't just mean the EXIF data. I mean the stuff that lets you mess with the white balance, +/-EV etc.
John
Message edited by author 2004-10-11 05:52:23. |
|
|
|
10/11/2004 06:36:08 AM · #12 |
I was using jp2 quite a bit last year...the compression is of excellent quality (i.e. compressing a 2GB image down to a few hundred mg, and you can't tell the difference between the two). However, I think PaulMdx has got it spot on...it won't be popular as an everyday image format until it is supported by many applications (and to be honest, I wouldn't be too happy about paying for a jp2 plug-in for Photoshop, either).
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:31:30 PM EDT.
