Photography Software & Post Processing Forum

Photography Software Forum Discuss Adobe Photoshop, RAW conversion, photography software, and anything related to digital photo processing. Forum moderator is GB1.
Digital Photography Software Reviews >>
Write A Review >>
Adobe Photography Software User Reviews >>
Photography Software News & Articles >>
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Member wedding photographer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    253

    Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    When do you usually save you files in "Jpeg 2000" format rather than "Jpeg" format? Do you use Jpeg 2000 at all?

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    10

    Re: Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    Jpeg 2k is not often used "as is" though it produces better image quality than Jpeg. I never met "pure" jpeg 2k photographies.

  3. #3
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    I never use it because I've heard what Wikipedia says:

    JPEG 2000 has been published as an ISO standard, ISO/IEC 15444. As of 2010, JPEG 2000 is not widely supported in web browsers, and hence is not generally used on the World Wide Web.

    Interesting what it's capabilities are though. Also from Wikipedia:

    While there is a modest increase in compression performance of JPEG 2000 compared to JPEG, the main advantage offered by JPEG 2000 is the significant flexibility of the codestream. The codestream obtained after compression of an image with JPEG 2000 is scalable in nature, meaning that it can be decoded in a number of ways; for instance, by truncating the codestream at any point, one may obtain a representation of the image at a lower resolution, or signal-to-noise ratio see scalable compression. By ordering the codestream in various ways, applications can achieve significant performance increases. However, as a consequence of this flexibility, JPEG 2000 requires encoders/decoders that are complex and computationally demanding. Another difference, in comparison with JPEG, is in terms of visual artifacts: JPEG 2000 produces ringing artifacts, manifested as blur and rings near edges in the image, while JPEG produces ringing artifacts and 'blocking' artifacts, due to its 88 blocks.

    It sounds like what they're saying is that it can be requested from a server in multiple resolutions, all from a single image.
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  4. #4
    Member wedding photographer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    253

    Re: Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    I guess people use TIFF if they want to have higher resolution.

  5. #5
    Member wedding photographer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    253

    Re: Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    Quote Originally Posted by GB1 View Post
    I never use it because I've heard what Wikipedia says:

    JPEG 2000 has been published as an ISO standard, ISO/IEC 15444. As of 2010, JPEG 2000 is not widely supported in web browsers, and hence is not generally used on the World Wide Web.

    Interesting what it's capabilities are though. Also from Wikipedia:

    While there is a modest increase in compression performance of JPEG 2000 compared to JPEG, the main advantage offered by JPEG 2000 is the significant flexibility of the codestream. The codestream obtained after compression of an image with JPEG 2000 is scalable in nature, meaning that it can be decoded in a number of ways; for instance, by truncating the codestream at any point, one may obtain a representation of the image at a lower resolution, or signal-to-noise ratio see scalable compression. By ordering the codestream in various ways, applications can achieve significant performance increases. However, as a consequence of this flexibility, JPEG 2000 requires encoders/decoders that are complex and computationally demanding. Another difference, in comparison with JPEG, is in terms of visual artifacts: JPEG 2000 produces ringing artifacts, manifested as blur and rings near edges in the image, while JPEG produces ringing artifacts and 'blocking' artifacts, due to its 88 blocks.

    It sounds like what they're saying is that it can be requested from a server in multiple resolutions, all from a single image.
    Thanks for the clarification!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    Quote Originally Posted by wedding photographer View Post
    I guess people use TIFF if they want to have higher resolution.
    Not resolution, jpeg and tiff can work in the same resolutions. Tiff is merely the lossless, or non-compressed format.
    - Charlie

    Feel free to edit and repost my work as a part of your critique.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Medley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR, USA
    Posts
    919

    Re: Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    This is a bit off-topic (or at least off sub-forum) but the place where JPEG2000 really seems to be coming into it's own is in digital video. Some professional studios are using the compression of JPEG2000 to reduce digital transfer and file access times to milliseconds.

    Not really my area of expertise, but I found it interesting.

    - Joe U.
    I have no intention of tiptoeing through life only to arrive safely at death.

  8. #8
    Member wedding photographer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    253

    Re: Saving in Jpeg 2000?

    Quote Originally Posted by Medley View Post
    This is a bit off-topic (or at least off sub-forum) but the place where JPEG2000 really seems to be coming into it's own is in digital video. Some professional studios are using the compression of JPEG2000 to reduce digital transfer and file access times to milliseconds.

    Not really my area of expertise, but I found it interesting.

    - Joe U.
    I don't think I will use JEP2000 anytime soon...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •