Beyond JPEG

MaS, with the Lurawave plugin those can be viewed without saving just fine.

JPEG will die once 16-bit lossy formats prove their worth. I’ve converted huge 10-bit raws to 16-bit, reasonable sized HDPs and J2Ks (~2MB), then imported and done the linear-log range conversion levels as normal. Even though you’d expect it to scramble the fine range info in the compression artifacts, that isn’t the case, and you get the biggest benefit of raw without the enormous size. (There’s something like a 5-10% overhead to hit the same visual quality as 8-bit, that holds true whether the 16-bit is all packed into 1% of the histogram or 100%.)

HDP will win only because Microsoft is backing it and it’s more open than J2K, even though it’s not open sourceable. And probably because it’s much more closely related to JPEG than J2K, simpler to implement in hardware.

I got xnview to support hdp so it wouldn’t be such a pain working with them. =p (PS check it out! Great alternative to Picasa, if the polar opposite in UI.) This is just one of those things I sorta geek out over, I think.

The woman is Lena Soderberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_S%C3%B6derberg

I think JP2 didn’t take off for the very reason that all it does is compress better and JPG compresses enough. The best demonstration is your side by side comparison: very high quality JPGs aren’t an obstacle to publication.

I think HD photo has a wider scope with its ability to decode only a tile and/or only a lower-resolution version of the image. This is well demonstrated in Photosynth : http://labs.live.com/photosynth/

See my discussions at :
http://www.photogpu.com/index.php?q=node/9

Okay, having been a semi-professional graphic designer for over a decade now, I feel I have some authority to speak here.

JPEG - I use this format for photographs. I generally use a compression rate of somewhere (using Photoshop) of 8 to 10, depending on the size of the image. The higher quality I can squeeze out, the better. I don’t really like JPEG, but I know it’s the standard if I want people to be able to view my photos, so I use it.

PNG - I use this for images that have a lot of flat color. I do a lot of line-art, since I’m red-green colorblind (Deuteranomaly), so it works out perfectly. The transparency on this is ideal because it supports Alpha transparency, which means you have have blended transparency as opposed to sharp-edged transparency like GIF gives you. Plus it’s a more open format, so I don’t feel bad using it.

GIF - A dead format I detest, have always detested, will always detest. I used it only out of ignorance in the earliest days of my career.

MNG - A sadly unadopted standard. The images tend to be ridiculously large, thus making Flash a more viable alternative.

SWF - Shockwave File // Flash. It’s got it’s good points, but for simple animation I’m positive the open-source community can come up with a better standard. Vector-based imagery is already very possible (SVG being the standard), and not everyone that wants to display animation wants to have to shell out many hundreds for Adobe’s Flash suite. I’d love to see an open-source FireFox supported vector animation format.

Anyhow. What’s been said before me is pretty much in line with what is known about graphics in the industry. High-quality for-print images tend to be TIFF, low-quality for-web images tend to be JPEG. BMP has no business being used, and PICT, the Macintosh format, is already basically obsolete since Apple mostly uses JPEG/PNG when using their own internal imaging.

In all, graphics formatting needs to grow, again. It has not kept apace with technology. The mitigating factor has been web browsers, pure and simple. With FireFox basically leading the way, if they adopt something that is put into wide-spread use, it should be adopted by the other browser formats in short order. In essence, the onus is on the FireFox team whether they like it or not. Such is the burden of taking on the Big Blue E.

Mitigating… I meant “limiting”. My god it’s monday…

Another advantage that the original JPEG has is that it uses math that is often already supported in hardware (the Discrete Cosine Transformation, I believe), or for which dedicated HW is cheap. This means for cameras and phones and such it’s a much more cost-effective option. (And the HW is also reused in MPEGs)

Presumably the patent issues also cloud the possibility of hardware implementations.

The big reason that JPEG 2000 would be nice is that it has a full alpha channel. That’s something desperately needed in a mainstream lossy format.

No, I’m not going to be like all the others who don’t read the comments and then say “gee, it works on a Mac running OSX with Safari”. I get sick of you lamos repeating the same thing again and again.

The only problem with JPEG is that the quantization matrices are standard and not very well thought out - with good quantization it approaches JPEG2000 quality.
There are also many ways to improve the quality, it’s just that research on this is way ahead of adoption - I blame lazy programmers (c:

JPEG2000 is patented to hell, that’s why no-one wants to adopt it.

  • just another bonus of software patents.

Just to pick up on something from a previous post on IE’s support for transparent PNG images, IE has actually supported transparency in PNG images since version 5.5 with the help of a (very messing…) filter, as described here:

http://www.design-ireland.net/alpha/controller/view_article.php?oid=00000000050

Not that I’m defending IE or anything, as stated at least now in IE7 you don’t need to use the filter anymore to achieve transparency, now if only MS would get their finger out and start building in some SVG support…

If jpeg2000 doesn’t support alpha channel I don’t see the step forward. Better compression? Thats nice, but not so important anymore.

My previous company built products around the JPEG2000 compression in 2001. The J2K compression is great for press photographers as they need to get their images to the office quicker than the competition. If one Jpeg takes 20 secs to upload using a cell phone, it will take 2 secs with J2K. Multiply that with the number of photos taken during a football game (2 x 45 mins), and you will soon understand that time IS money. Our product would take jpeg images and compress them with J2K (no reduced quality) and unpack them at the server.

But now adays, the camera themselves support J2K so our very small window of opportunity disappeared quite quickly. But it is still used by many photographers in sweden and brazil :slight_smile:

The fun part was that we had a java client that would kick ass with image viewing/handling when compared to the industry standard app. Java slow? Dont think so. http://www.imbridge.com/eng/index.php?avd=imwipsid=1hkol=hkol_1

when i try to save to web in phtoshop …
my JPEG images are smaller than PNG …
dunno where i go wrong here …
i thought PNG was a better than JPG …
hmm …

"i thought PNG was a better than JPG …"
Better doesn’t necessarily mean smaller. It uses lossless compression, which means if you use a lossy compressed jpg it will tend to be smaller. But if you have the right sort of file (lots of flat colour) and want perfect quality, png is a lot better.

Safari can open Jpeg 2000 images inline, but so can QuickTime.

If you have QuickTime installed, you will also have the QuickTime browser plugin installed. It’s MIME settings are by default set to use QuickTime to open JPEG 2000 images ( .jp2 ).

That is the best setting, because it allows FireFox, or any other browser on Windows or Macintosh (ie can run QuickTime) to open JPEG 2000 images as they are encountered.

If you use Microsoft Windows and refuse to install QuickTime, then you can’t open JPEG 2000 images (along with a few other still and video formats).

If you use a JPEG-compliant browser like Safari, and you would prefer to have Safari open JPEG 2000 images inline (ie by itself) then remove JPEG 2000 from QuickTime’s MIME settings, in the QuickTime plugin preferences.

You can reach the MIME setting two ways in OSX:

  1. System Preferences: QuickTime: Advanced: MIME Settings
  2. Launch QuickTime Player, go to:
    QuickTime Player: QuickTime Preferences: Advanced: MIME Settings
    … and in both cases, click the arrow at: Images: Still Image Files:
    … and uncheck JPEG 2000 images. Remember to click OK, and then you can close the Preferences.

Note that if you do so, JPEG 2000 will no longer work with FireFox or other browsers on your Mac but will work fine if you use Safari. Display will be just slightly faster.

If you use Windows, well, you simply need QuickTime to view the images, so don’t disable the MIME setting. Its the only way you have to see them in a browser.

“JPEG2000 is patented to hell, that’s why no-one wants to adopt it.”

I thought that it was patented but free for everyone to use, so they would not have another MP3 problem?!

I noticed that jpeg2000 does a much better job compressing images lossless(ly) than PNG does.

don’t forget about jpeg dimension limitations (64k x 64k) and that it does not support tiling (necessary to process really huge images)

while jpg may be fine for most folks simply browsing, I am serving 40+ megapixel images in the science/education area. A 16-bit TIFF is 125 MB; equal size compressions to 2-3 MB, an almost feasible size for distribution on the web, shows a huge difference in artifacts at 100% between jpg and jpg2. It does make a difference in this application, and JP2 is the hands-down winner.

Microsoft gives away HD Photo (with “will not assert patents” caveat), submitting it to a standards body:

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+Make+our+HD+Photo+format+a+standard/2100-1012_3-6165004.html