4 ms·
How come jpeg 2000 never became popular?
by 77pt77 1y ago
How come jpeg 2000 never became popular?
- llm_nerd 1y agoOrthogonal, but one fun thing about JPEG 2000 is that when you watch a movie at movie theatres now, odds are overwhelming that you are watching a sequence of JPEG 2000 encoded images.
- 77pt77 1y agoSo like mjpeg but for jpeg 2000? That doesn't even make much sense because you lose inter-frame compressibility
- meindnoch 1y agoEvery frame is a keyframe in digital cinema. It's literally a bunch of JPEG2000 files, wrapped in an MXF container. A typical 2hr movie is in the 300-400GB ballpark.
- AshleysBrain 1y agoIIRC JPEG2000 was never supported by any browser other than Safari, and even Safari recently gave up and removed support (around the same time they added support for JPEG XL). As to why other browsers never supported it, I'm not sure.
- SimplyUnknown 1y agoMultiple reasons, while technically better and more benign compression artifacts, it is computationally more expensive, limited quality improvements, encumbered by patents, poor Metadata format, poor colorspace support... In the end, the benefits aren't great enough compared to jpeg to change the default format
- Maken 1y agoJPEG 2000 used to be a patent minefield.
- meindnoch 1y agoGreed. Wavelets used to be heavily patented.
- izacus 1y agoIn 99% cases of "Why wasn't this (better) format adopted?" the answer is: * It's not actually better. * It's patented/requires license/is owned by someone who wants a lot of royalties. JPEG2000 is of the second variety.