Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's Firefox May Gain JPEG 2000 Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Ubuntu's Firefox May Gain JPEG 2000 Support

    Ubuntu's Firefox May Gain JPEG 2000 Support

    Phoronix: Ubuntu's Firefox May Gain JPEG 2000 Support

    JPEG 2000, the image file format that has been around for nearly a decade and offers better compression performance and greater flexibility in the code-stream that can allow for higher quality photographs compared to a traditional JPEG, may get a boost on the Linux desktop. JPEG 2000 hasn't seen much adoption in large part because of the lack of web browsers that natively support this JP2 ISO standard, including Firefox...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzQ3OQ

  • b15hop
    replied
    Yes Ming does look interesting

    http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/

    Leave a comment:


  • laststop
    replied
    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
    The sole maintainer of the libpng APNG patches decided to stop working on it last year.
    Actually, you link shows that APNG patch is alive and well.

    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
    Application support for MNG seems more widespread than APNG.
    But how many of them still work? I tried official gif2mng converter, and it wouldn't work for me at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rip-Rip
    replied
    Originally posted by makomk View Post
    Unless graphics cards have gained hardware JPEG 2000 support without me noticing, rendering the image requires converting it to an uncompressed format - which is what those commands are testing.
    Actually, the rendering will be faster, thanks to wavelets, because you don't need the whole image to be decoded. On Jpeg you need to decode the whole image, which, on very large image could be very long. On JPEG2000 you could decode a part of the image, for example, what you're currently looking at.

    Leave a comment:


  • makomk
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Why 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.
    Unless graphics cards have gained hardware JPEG 2000 support without me noticing, rendering the image requires converting it to an uncompressed format - which is what those commands are testing.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Why 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • makomk
    replied
    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.
    It also takes ten times longer to decompress than normal JPEG, at least with the open-source implementations. I'm not exaggerating - I actually tested this:

    [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.

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    >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.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    because you are wrong. Jpeg2000 is A LOT better than jpeg.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X