4 ms·
The future isn't here yet unfortunately. I imagine the doctors would view these images in multitudes of ways(browsers, operating systems, image viewers) with v
by lajamerr 4y ago
The future isn't here yet unfortunately.
I imagine the doctors would view these images in multitudes of ways(browsers, operating systems, image viewers) with varying level of support. So encoding in a standard that is yet to be entirely finalized and adopted is a bad move as of now.
You'd be best off with going with JPEG2000 still if that's what you prefer or DICOM.
- Iv 4y agoOh adoption does not have to be that good. It is for researchers right now, to exchange results. So the only requirement is that it is possible to use it with a somewhat mature lib in python.
- detuur 4y agoI absolutely recommend JXL. It is developed by the JPEG Group as a successor to JPEG2000 and performs better in nearly every metric (big exception currently being encoder speed). JPEG2000 isn't really widely supported, but does have many more libraries available. So unless you expect library availability and/or encoder speed to hurt adoption, go for JXL.
- Iv 4y agoThanks I'll give it a try!