Jpeg2000

Just wondering, has there been any talk about Jpeg2000 standards being included as an option in future releases?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Well the technology has been around for 8-10 years and on that it’s been discussed by many on whether or not it should be a new “standard” or not. I think it’s one of these things where you’re either a die-hard fan of saving an extra 10% on your file size or if you’re happy with what you got. I know from my experiences my images seem blurry-er with JPEG2000 than a normal JPG.

To me it’s just another format and would someone really be able to tell it was JPEG2000 vs a normal JPG?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Dan

The primary option of Jpeg2000 is that it can be saved as a TIFF file with a return to full features without compression, unlike Jpeg which, even if lossless compression is chosen, will always lose some information. Currently, I provide hi res images in PDF format. It would be nice to be able to provide certain images in Jpeg2000, giving the person the option to decompress to full TIFF format.

Jpeg2000 will look less distinct if you are viewing the file in a browser or image viewer that is not fully compatible with the format. In addition, Jpeg2000 defaults to 72 dpi, even though when decompressed, it returns to the original file dpi. Jpeg2000 is becoming an accepted part of the library and archives field as we find ourselves having to store massive numbers of master images. TIFF take up a ton of room, whereas a large TIFF saved as Jpeg2000 offers a significant reduction in size.

If you save a smaller TIFF or Jpeg as Jpeg2000, the overall size reduction is miminal. When you get into large files, or gb’s or even tb’s worth of files, it adds up.

Gary


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

What I was reading was that it was along the same lines as a JPG in that it’s biggest difference was how it stored internal information in a different format as well as a small reduction in file size. After that I totally didn’t see any of this.

I know people ask for unique formats in Photoshop for years that never make it in there, but hopefully for your case it’ll be different in this instance.

Couldn’t you just import them as Pass-Through’s?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Dan

Although Jpeg2000 has been around for awhile, testing of the format has been underway for at least the past 5 years at the Library of Congress (US), the British Library and a variety of other venues. The intent is to replace TIFF as a storage format for long term use.

I could import images as Pass-Throughs, but that adds more links and steps. I was hoping that, if Jpeg2000 was added to the list, we would have a choice in how we present our information to people. We know use this standard at work for images containing considerable detail. The user has the choice of sticking with the 72dpi version or decompressing on their computer to full resolution.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options