Tech Off Thread

15 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

JPEG 2000 anyone?

Back to Forum: Tech Off
  • User profile image
    Pseudo

    I was just reading about the jpeg 2000 image format and was wondering why, 4 years after it was developed, no browsers that I know of support it. Let alone Digital Camera's...

    Is there something stoping it's adoption?  What would it take to get it into Internet Explorer?

    It seems to me that if IE doesnt support it, nobody will because joe user wont be able to view it.

    From what I've read, it's far superior to the jpeg format but it's suffering form the "chicken or the egg" effect.  Its not supported because nobody uses it, but nobody uses it because its not supported.

    Maybe somebody on the IE team is working on it?

  • User profile image
    lars

    I'm curious about the same thing. All I've seen so far is a JPEG2000 plugin for Photoshop.

    /Lars.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    lars wrote:
    I'm curious about the same thing. All I've seen so far is a JPEG2000 plugin for Photoshop.

    /Lars.


    I've seen a JPEG2000 plugin for Irfanview.

  • User profile image
    ole

    I'm not on the IE team and I can't speak for Microsoft.  I am the CTO of a company which does medical imaging applications, and we use JPEG2000 all the time.  Based on that, let me take a guess.

    JPEG2000 is much better than JPEG as a compression technology for images; it yields higher compression ratios and fewer image artifacts.  However it is also far more compute-intensive.  It is highly asymmetric in that compression requires a great deal more CPU power than decompression, but even so decompression of JPEG2000 images requires a lot more processing than decompression of JPEG images.  My guess is that  the average desktop isn't powerful enough to make routine processing of JPEG2000 images worthwhile.  However computers are getting faster all the time, and using JPEG2000 would reduce average image sizes, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it adopted at some point, as another option.

    Right now there are a number of companies which make JPEG2000 browser plug-ins for the JP2 file format.  There are also a number of plug-ins for Photoshop to create JPEG2000 images, as well as stand-alone encoding tools.  So there are ways to use JPEG2000, but they only really work in "closed" environments; they're not suitable for public applications.

  • User profile image
    Pseudo

    i wonder if maybe people dont realize how different it is from jpeg.  Here's a little run down:

    Wavelet transform vs. Discreet Cosine transform based compression. (no more blocky images at low bit rates)

    Much better quality at the same file size.

    Much smaller files at the same quality.

    Lossless OR lossy compression.

    Works much better with images containing text/vector graphics.

    progressive transmition in Quality/Color/etc domain

    streaming trasmition (i.e get a thumbnail by looking at the first ~10KB, then look at the rest to get the full size...no need for thumbs.db)

    extensible metadata fields for putting context information like who's in the picture, the GPS coordinates, etc.

    It's actually kinda sad how little jpeg does compared to jpeg2000 and I didn't even list all the differences in features.

    With megapixels on the rise digital cameras NEED this format.  I want 8000x6000 pixel images, but I dont want to kill my hard drive trying to view them.  With jpeg2000 I can just read the first 10% or so of the file to view it on my screen, and it wont take a weekend to create a thumbnail.

    There are also a ton of benifits for the web.  Image gallery sites currently have to maintain muliple versions of large images at different resolutions, but these could be generated instantly with jpeg2000.  Medical images can be >1GB and may need several different downsampled copies for effective viewing. Add the lossless compression to the mix and progressive downloads and you've got a really good solution to a common problem.

    now I just want to beg...PLEASE add jpeg 2000 support to IE so the rest of the world will see all the benifits and digi cams will adopt it.  Thanks for listening.

  • User profile image
    Akaina

    Ah yes... the beauty of intellectual property rights.

    I'll bet you a nickle it's a royalty issue or a patent issue.

    PNG is supported amost everywhere, and even though it's not the best, I think the fact that it's royalty free really helped in its adoption.

    I'll bet hospitals can afford the royalty.

  • User profile image
    Pseudo

    Dont mean to spam my own thread, but I found a nice page comparing the differce between jpeg and jpeg 2000 at low bit rates.  They took a ~200KB png and compressed using both formats down to 16KB.  The results are stunning, and they offer the actual .jp2 file as well as the original png so you can verify it.

    Have a look http://www.fnordware.com/j2k/jp2samples.html

    PS, the only thing I can think of, as to why it's not supported, is that Wavelets are SCARY!!!  Tongue Out  Surely someone at MS see's this as a good feature for native support in IE.  Or at least can tell me why it's not already in IE.

  • User profile image
    Pseudo

    Akaina wrote:

    Ah yes... the beauty of intellectual property rights.



    I dont know about how things are in 2004, but this article back in 1999, and this pdf from 2001 claim that part1 (core system) of the spec would be free of royalties.  part 2 is and extension spec, and part 3 is motion jpeg2000.

    Also it's already an international standard according to page 9 of the second link.  Actually, ignore my list of benifits of using jpeg2000 above and just read the second link in this post.  It covers everything I listed an more...with pretty pitures too.

    [update]
    here's mozilla's bugzilla page on jpeg2000 support.  Someone mentioned legal issues, so maybe it is a problem.  Surely Microsoft isn't afraid of actually licensing something as apposed to the Mozilla croud.  Could give people another reason for using IE over FireXXX and Mozilla.
    [/update]

  • User profile image
    Knute

    Yeah were is the JP2 support??? Feature request!!!

    ~ Knute

  • User profile image
    amg

    JPEG2000 seems analgous to MP3Pro in my eyes.

    The formats JPEG and MP3 have become standards.  Such all-encompassing standards don't give way to the next marginal-moderate improvement that comes down the pipe...

    I'd bet a whole quarter that it'll be JPEG2009 or MP4/MP5 (or other non-existent technology) that will take the seat as the next compression standard.

    Another fun example: ZIP

    When did that finally make it as a standard format in Windows...XP wasn't it? Wink  Gosh, I remember when PKZIP 0.93alpha was the hottest way to save space on my 20MB hard drive... Wink

  • User profile image
    Akaina

    "Could give people another reason for using IE over FireXXX and Mozilla."


    That's probably the MOST GENIUS idea I've heard to combat OSS yet...

    IE should put aside a small fraction of its profits and load up on licensed formats - then when they become standard, there's no way other projects can compete.


    wow... it's so evil I think I need to take a bath.

  • User profile image
    JParrish

    I have to agree in my laughing of JPEG2000 being a reason that IE would be more popular. And I AM A MS guy.. but let me vent a little frustration now that you touched on IE..

    The absolute progression for IE was this..

    Netscape = Threat
    MS Builds IE 3
    Netscape Romps
    MS Builds IE4 surpassing NS standards support (and channeling it everywhere)
    Netscape *gurgle*
    *cricket.. cricket*
    IE adds wonderful Media Bar!!
    *cricket.. cricket*

    Now I realize this is sarcastic, but it is a good example where MS pushed a technology to get a foot hold and then dropped the innovation. I now use FireFox (insert whatever Fire* name you want) most of the time for reasons:

    1. FireFox has tabbed browsing.. one of the most intuative features I've seen in BROWSERS
    2. FireFox allows me to block pop-ups and other annoying script driven  behaviour
    3. FireFox includes a decent download manager

    Now I have seen versions of IE in the longhorn preview that have tabbed browsing popup blocking (edited).. why MS has not continued to release updates to deliver what customers really need/want is beyond me.

    To their credit I must say:

    1. Security is something that resources are better spent on until MS can get that under control (Nice product that is insecure = useless)

    2. The things I have seen in what is to be delivered in 1.5-2 years is jaw-droppingly  beautiful.. including updates to IE..

    I just scratch my head sometimes as to why such trivial things weren't incorporated into IE long ago.

    The only explanation I can think of is that MS realized that winning the browser prize wasn't all that it appeared to be back in the dot com days.. ActiveX, and the HTML data binding fell other standards being pushed through proper standards bodies.

  • User profile image
    Pseudo

    Akaina wrote:

    IE should put aside a small fraction of its profits and load up on licensed formats - then when they become standard, there's no way other projects can compete.

    wow... it's so evil I think I need to take a bath.


    well, I didn't mean it in an anti-competative "evil" way.  I was just saying that MS's buisness model gives it the ability to actually license software instead of waiting around for a may-never-happen license free version.

    just about everyone I know here at MSU is switching over to FireXXX over very minor differences.  If MS desires at all to keep people using IE and therefore Windows, it only makes sense to add in features that no other browser has.  (and a few that EVERY other browser has) Smiley

    oh, and as for the comment about jpeg 2000 being a minor improvement...it gives 20-30% better compression at the same quality and has much better scalability than jpeg.  What other format can claim this?  This means better support for poket pc's, cell phones, and all around less network congestion.  In other words, minor improvements can make a huge difference in the users overall experience.

  • User profile image
    amg

    Pseudo wrote:


    oh, and as for the comment about jpeg 2000 being a minor improvement...it gives 20-30% better compression at the same quality and has much better scalability than jpeg.


    "Marginal-Moderate".  I'd put 20-30% in that category.

    Another great example...MP3 vs. OGG.  OGG's are another JPEG2000 equivalent.

    Standards progress slower than actual technological innovations.  Cieste la vie. =)

  • User profile image
    Another Implementer

    Hi all,

    There seem to be a number of JPEG2000 plugins available for download on the internet. For one, you could use the LizardTech plugin. Herez the link:
    http://www.lizardtech.com/software/expressview/webinstall/.

    Hope this helps.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.