I'm sure all distros would consider shipping a patch if one existed.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu's Firefox May Gain JPEG 2000 Support
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by dopehouse View PostDoes other OS software like GIMP and co support JPEG 2000 too? Who needs JPEG 2000?
Comment
-
Originally posted by chithanh View PostRegarding JPEG 2000, it has some advantages over JPEG, eg. alpha transparency. The Wikipeda article has all details.
Originally posted by b15hop View PostTell me.. Why bother having a Jpeg 2000 format if no one uses it? This should have been done AGES ago...
Comment
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Features *shrug* Seems to be better than JPEG mostly on limited-bandwidth scenarios. If you're free to use as much space as you want for the images, difference is negligible.
Comment
-
>Compared to the previous JPEG standard, JPEG 2000 delivers a typical compression gain in the range of 20%, depending on the image characteristics. Higher-resolution images tend to benefit more, where JPEG-2000's spatial-redundancy prediction can contribute more to the compression process. In very low-bitrate applications, studies have shown JPEG2000 to be outperformed[2] by the intra-frame coding mode of H.264. Good applications for JPEG 2000 are large images, images with low-contrast edges — e.g., medical images.
Comment
-
Originally posted by energyman View Post>Compared to the previous JPEG standard, JPEG 2000 delivers a typical compression gain in the range of 20%, depending on the image characteristics. Higher-resolution images tend to benefit more, where JPEG-2000's spatial-redundancy prediction can contribute more to the compression process. In very low-bitrate applications, studies have shown JPEG2000 to be outperformed[2] by the intra-frame coding mode of H.264. Good applications for JPEG 2000 are large images, images with low-contrast edges — e.g., medical images.
[aidan@yarrow 4 tmp] 0$ identify test-in.jpg
test-in.jpg JPEG 1920x1200 1920x1200+0+0 8-bit DirectClass 863kb
[aidan@yarrow 4 tmp] 0$ time convert test-in.jpg test-out.pnm
real 0m0.276s
user 0m0.171s
sys 0m0.045s
[aidan@yarrow 4 tmp] 0$ time convert test-in.jp2 test-out.pnm
real 0m2.138s
user 0m1.725s
sys 0m0.161s
(This is Jasper, since that's what ImageMagick uses. Unfortunately, it looks like the other library OpenJpeg is just as slow. OpenJpeg 2.0 may be faster, but it's still in the alpha stage.)
Unless you're downloading a very big image to a very fast PC on a very slow connection, I'm not convinced it's worth it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nanonyme View PostWhy would image conversion rate have any significance as to whether it should be adopted or not? Surely the only important part is how fast it's rendered.
Comment
Comment