Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenJPH v0.10 JPEG2000 Library Adds AVX-512 Support

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

  • OpenJPH v0.10 JPEG2000 Library Adds AVX-512 Support

    Phoronix: OpenJPH v0.10 JPEG2000 Library Adds AVX-512 Support

    OpenJPH as the open-source library implementing JPEG2000 Part-15 (JPH / HTJ2K) support is out with a big feature release...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Out of curiosity, who's using JPEG2000 and for what?

    Up until AVIF came along, it still seemed interesting for lossy compression. However, I'm no longer so sure its use can be justified.

    Comment


    • #3
      From a technical perspective - wasn't it until JPEG XL came along? AVIF needs workarounds just to handle very large images and has much lower limits for things like number of channels and bit depth. (source: https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for..._dethrone_jpeg )


      Comment


      • #4
        When the "JPEG 2000" name was coined, it was pointing towards the future. Today, it's pointing towards a quarter of a century ago, still looking for adoption

        Comment


        • #5
          What recent Intel processor are you talking about?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            Out of curiosity, who's using JPEG2000 and for what?
            It's used in digital imaging/digital video applications, but only in niche uses like medical and archival imaging and digital cinema. Some security video systems use it. Beyond that, it's non-existent in the intended or applicable markets of use. OpenJPH is a high-throughput JPEG2K encoder/decoder that has video applications and it's intended to broaden the use of JPEG2K in markets where it hasn't done well or been blunted by other formats due to high computing requirements associated with the format.
            Last edited by TheLexMachine; 06 January 2024, 08:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post
              When the "JPEG 2000" name was coined, it was pointing towards the future. Today, it's pointing towards a quarter of a century ago, still looking for adoption
              Patents are a bitch. It got submarined, IIRC.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by coder View Post
                Out of curiosity, who's using JPEG2000 and for what?
                My phone with (shitty) AI and whatnot saves photos to JPG by default. It seems defaults are decided upon by grandads. I hope the world moves to webp/avif/jxl faster, it looks like a IE6 story.
                Last edited by cl333r; 07 January 2024, 07:32 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                  My phone with (shitty) AI and whatnot saves photos to JPG by default.
                  JPEG2000 is fundamentally different than what you're talking about (JPEG '92). At the most basic level, 2k uses wavelets, while the older one uses 8x8 DCTs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                    My phone with (shitty) AI and whatnot saves photos to JPG by default. It seems defaults are decided upon by grandads. I hope the world moves to webp/avif/jxl faster, it looks like a IE6 story.
                    Originally posted by coder View Post
                    JPEG2000 is fundamentally different than what you're talking about (JPEG '92). At the most basic level, 2k uses wavelets, while the older one uses 8x8 DCTs.
                    I was gonna say, JPEG is nothing like IE6. At its time, it was even described as "alien tech from the future, something you'd find in the Area 51 wreckage". It was that good. That's why it's so widespread and hard to displace now.
                    For a while I was dying to see wavelets in action (back then I would re-encode images to save disk space), I don't really care about that anymore.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X