5 ms·

I was hoping Jpeg2000 would take over because it is so flexible. It encodes really well at the low end and really well at the high end. You can target a specifi

I was hoping Jpeg2000 would take over because it is so flexible. It encodes really well at the low end and really well at the high end. You can target a specific file size and have it produce it. Instead of the blocking artifacts caused by the 8x8 DCT grid, you get smooth blurring.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Sadly, jpeg2000 may never catch on until the patents encumbering it expire.
- wmf 16y ago
  Given that the JPEG 2000 patents are licensed royalty-free, I think this says something about open source patent nitpicking. "All patents that WG1 believes to be essential to practice JPEG 2000 Part 1 are available on ITU-T’s patent policy 2.1, which is fee-free (see the ITU-T web site for their interpretation of this)." http://www.jpeg.org/faq.phtml?action=show_answer&question_id=q3f042a68b1081 http://www.jpeg.org/faq.phtml?action=show_answer&questio...
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    Two things after a quick scan of the page: 1) "Again, at every JPEG meeting the following resolution is also passed unanimously" appears to be saying each year they vote whether to continue or wether to reel in the bait. Tasty free morsels given by fisherman often turn out to have hooks attached. 2) It appears that one has to give up any patents that read on to a baseline spec for JPEG. This sounds like it could be bad for large multimedia companies who want to retain rights to an image format - what's the baseline. If the baseline is something like "uses huffman codes to compress image data" then this is going to be a potential huge cost in IPR given up. These are possibly unfounded, just first thoughts at 2am.
- nwmcsween 16y ago
  This hasn't stopped nearly every codec popular today.
  - varjag 16y ago
    It has stopped a number of codecs that you most likely never heard about, since they, well, did not become popular. Take for instance arithmetic coding option in original JPEG, the only patent-encumbered part of it. Just NOONE ever using it.
Goosey 16y ago
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF_and_2000_Comparison.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF... JPEG looks better to me. It's only a data point of 1, but it's the most important data point to me. ;)
- Groxx 16y ago
  I've seen that picture before, and it's pretty indicative of its lower settings, yes. And I agree - the sharper & more accurate edges of 2000 make the less detailed / smoother textured interiors look disproportionately worse.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  Both of those compressed versions have (different kinds of) unacceptable artifacts, IMO. It'd be interesting to see comparisons at a few other levels of compression.
astrange 16y ago
The smooth blurring is because wavelet compression (which JPEG2K uses) naturally resizes the image as it gets smaller. Resize your JPEGs smaller, compress them, then upscale them again, and they might look better than JPEG2K does.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Sadly, jpeg2000 may never catch on until the patents encumbering it expire.

wmf 16y ago
Given that the JPEG 2000 patents are licensed royalty-free, I think this says something about open source patent nitpicking. "All patents that WG1 believes to be essential to practice JPEG 2000 Part 1 are available on ITU-T’s patent policy 2.1, which is fee-free (see the ITU-T web site for their interpretation of this)." http://www.jpeg.org/faq.phtml?action=show_answer&question_id=q3f042a68b1081 http://www.jpeg.org/faq.phtml?action=show_answer&questio...
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  Two things after a quick scan of the page: 1) "Again, at every JPEG meeting the following resolution is also passed unanimously" appears to be saying each year they vote whether to continue or wether to reel in the bait. Tasty free morsels given by fisherman often turn out to have hooks attached. 2) It appears that one has to give up any patents that read on to a baseline spec for JPEG. This sounds like it could be bad for large multimedia companies who want to retain rights to an image format - what's the baseline. If the baseline is something like "uses huffman codes to compress image data" then this is going to be a potential huge cost in IPR given up. These are possibly unfounded, just first thoughts at 2am.
nwmcsween 16y ago
This hasn't stopped nearly every codec popular today.
- varjag 16y ago
  It has stopped a number of codecs that you most likely never heard about, since they, well, did not become popular. Take for instance arithmetic coding option in original JPEG, the only patent-encumbered part of it. Just NOONE ever using it.

Goosey 16y ago

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF_and_2000_Comparison.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF... JPEG looks better to me. It's only a data point of 1, but it's the most important data point to me. ;)

Groxx 16y ago
I've seen that picture before, and it's pretty indicative of its lower settings, yes. And I agree - the sharper & more accurate edges of 2000 make the less detailed / smoother textured interiors look disproportionately worse.
jacobolus 16y ago
Both of those compressed versions have (different kinds of) unacceptable artifacts, IMO. It'd be interesting to see comparisons at a few other levels of compression.

astrange 16y ago

The smooth blurring is because wavelet compression (which JPEG2K uses) naturally resizes the image as it gets smaller. Resize your JPEGs smaller, compress them, then upscale them again, and they might look better than JPEG2K does.