4 ms·

JPEG 2000 is capable of compressing 1969x1307 images without issues. I work with JPEG 2000 codecs every day. It is commonly used in Virtual Microscopy with imag

JPEG 2000 is capable of compressing 1969x1307 images without issues. I work with JPEG 2000 codecs every day. It is commonly used in Virtual Microscopy with images in the tens of gigabytes as well as with small 256x256 MRI. I don't know why the author does not present "JPEG 2000 at this size". Edit: I was confused since with most coders you can specify precise mean squared error optimal truncation points (called quality layers) and it should have been very easy to obtain a stream of any particular file size.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 11y ago
That example is looking at a specific file size. So what he's saying is that he was unable to produce a JPEG 2000 image in a file that size from that image, not from an image of that resolution in general.
- silverbacknet 11y ago
  He didn't try hard enough. OpenJPEG has a file size parameter, which can go well below its -q 0 size. I was easily able to generate a 16.9K jp2 by specifying the size: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54412753/doom9/fish.jp2 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54412753/doom9/fish.jp2 which in png looks like: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54412753/doom9/fish.jp2.png https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54412753/doom9/fish.jp2.... Looks better than anything else but BPG at that size, to me, although FLIF obviously isn't optimized for lossy.
  - jonsneyers 11y ago
    Thanks for pointing this out! I only tried ImageMagick convert at minimum -quality. Sorry about that.