3 ms·
JPEG 2000 is actually quite popular, for example any movie you see in a cinema is encoded using JPEG 2000 – they don't use video codecs for digital cinema, but
by jonsneyers 7y ago
JPEG 2000 is actually quite popular, for example any movie you see in a cinema is encoded using JPEG 2000 – they don't use video codecs for digital cinema, but encode each frame separately, to avoid video compression artifacts.
Also in medical imaging, nearly everything is using JPEG 2000. Apple products have supported it for a long time.
JPEG XR is also known as "Windows Media Photo" and "HD Photo" and has been supported in the Microsoft ecosystem since Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 9.
JPEG XS, XL and Pleno are of course much newer and will still have to be battle-tested.
But yes, none of the newer JPEG standards have reached the popularity of the first JPEG codec, which is by far the most popular image format ever.
- todotask 7y agoJPEG XL repo seems to have adopt Google Brunsli.
- PaulHoule 7y agoThe FBI uses JPEG 2000 for fingerprints.
- Ajedi32 7y agoPersonally I'm really excited about the potential of JPEG XS for wireless VR. Currently most of the high quality wireless setups require expensive, high-bandwidth solutions like WiGig in order to avoid the latency penalty of compressing the video stream. If JPEG XS can get those streams small enough to fit into a regular 5 GHz Wi-Fi connection, that would be a _huge_ deal for the affordability of wireless VR setups.
- clouddrover 7y agoAn advantage JPEG XL has over previous efforts is that it’s royalty free and that JPEGs can be losslessly converted to JPEG XL (and back again) and still get about a 20% file size reduction. Being able to convert to JPEG XL with no quality loss will help adoption.
- todotask 7y agoExcept in some case I have already optimize with Optimage, Google Brunsli didn’t reach nearly 20% space saving as I hope.
- userbinator 7y agofor example any movie you see in a cinema is encoded using JPEG 2000 – they don't use video codecs for digital cinema, but encode each frame separately, to avoid video compression artifacts. They also use very expensive dedicated hardware to decode Motion JPEG2000 at movie framerate, because it's far more computationally intensive than regular JPEG or even the newer video codecs like H264/H265.
- codinghorror 7y agoEven on today’s hardware? That seems unlikely to me?
- janwas 7y agoIIRC J2K is about 40 MPixels/s per core. 4K60p is 498 MPixel/s :)
- jonsneyers 7y agoFor this reason, they're currently working on "High Throughput JPEG 2000" which is a computationally cheaper flavor of J2K.
- rasz 7y agoRed cameras "Redcode" is just obfuscated JPEG 2000 pretending to be some novel thing.