3 ms·
JPEG-2000 is an actual standard. I forget how supported it is. That said, not many images for the web showing up so encoded. I don't think a format requiring J
by jmspring 12y ago
JPEG-2000 is an actual standard. I forget how supported it is. That said, not many images for the web showing up so encoded.
I don't think a format requiring JS to decode and negating the whole parallel download/decode thing has a chance regardless of the elegance.
It's not an imaging format discussion I this case.
- jmspring 12y agoPrior HN thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704629
- jacobolus 12y agoJPEG 2000 is an actual standard but to get it working you need to license a decoder from someone or build a new one, you can’t just piggyback on some existing HEVC decoder. JPEG 2000 doesn’t currently work in every browser, and there have been at least a couple of security vulnerabilities in the decoder (Kakadu I think?) that OS X ships by default and enables for Safari. In many cases where there’s no native browser or direct plugin support you can get it working with a slow, buggy, resource-hogging Flash implementation, but I’ve had pretty poor experience as a user on sites that incorporate one. I don’t believe there are any pure-Javascript implementations. As far as I can tell, this new format already has a better client compatibility story than JPEG 2000 right off the bat, as well as better quality for the same file sizes.