Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Graphics Software

State of the JPEG2000 Standard? 97

Posted by Cliff
from the image-revolutions dept.
ehb asks: "With all the (r)evolutions going on in networking (IPv6), video (MPEG4/H.264) and audio (MPEG4 AAC), I was wondering what happened to that big image compression promise of some years ago: JPEG2000. According to the official JPEG2000 page, although the entire standard not is completed, the important parts are, which would allow JPEG2000 to function as a still-image replacement for the old JPEG! I have seen lists of software programs that implement (parts?) of the JPEG2000 specification, but missed the important ones (web browsers, etc). There even exists an Open source implementation of the codec, so what is holding everything back? The benefits over normal JPEGs are huge, so can someone shed some light on the hold-up?" Back in April of 2002, JPEG2000 was "coming soon", and it was touted as being the "the future of imaging", but after that the hype seems to have dried up. What happened to this promising specification? Did another format surpass it (PNG, perhaps)?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State of the JPEG2000 Standard?

Comments Filter:
  • Inertia (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Blackknight (25168) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @06:31PM (#8048954) Homepage
    For most people JPEG is "good enough", so it's not worth the effort to swtich everything to use jpeg2000.
    • Re:Inertia (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Directrix1 (157787) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @06:37PM (#8049036)
      Well, for one JPEG2000 takes forever to encode/decode. There are some really complex computations going on in the background, and regular JPEG is much faster (although the quality isn't nearly as good). As far as PNG goes, the best compression it can get is JPEG'd data. Another interesting where is it is the MNG. The supposed replacement for the animated GIF is barely supported anywhere, and for some reason Mozilla just recently REMOVED support of it.
      • regular JPEG is much faster (although the quality isn't nearly as good)

        I guess I've never seen any graphics that actually showed up this difference in quality. (Links anyone?) Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I wouldn't think that any improvement on JPEGs would be noticable on a typical monitor, where the pixel density is almost always less than 100 dpi.

        Commercial printers could use that extra image quality, but that's not the kind of software most of us would have contact with.

        • Re:Quality and speed (Score:3, Informative)

          by escher (3402)
          I think the main improvement would be smaller files at the same image quality.
          • Actually, the main improvement is the fact that JPEG2000 is capable of lossless encoding. Even at lossless, it still knocks the file size considerably down (depending on image complexity).
        • There's plenty of issues with it. JPEG a screen full of text, and tell me it looks good. JPEG has the same issues as MPEG does: mostly solid color areas are blocky (if there's a slow gradient it'll be most noticeable), and edges are crap. It's made for pictures and photos, where such issues aren't as noticeable. JPEG2000 prolly won't do good on text screens either (again, it's not what it's designed for), but the file size is much smaller. JPEGS are already small, but I once saw a picture of a starburs
        • Re:Quality and speed (Score:2, Informative)

          by damiam (409504)
          JPEG has adjustable compression. It's possible to create a near-lossless JPEG image (at enormous file sizes), and it's possible to compress a 25 megapixel photo down to 2 kilobytes (at horrendous quality). Most people, when compressing JPEGs for the web, attempt to get the smallest possible file size while retaining reasonable quality. JPEG2000's better compression allows for the same good-enough quality at much lower filesizes. That's why it's useful.
          • Well, there are limits to how well jpg can do, even at the highest setting. The setting only controls how the DCT co-efficients are quantized. Out of your control is 1) the Chroma subsampling (color is a half the rez, both h and v, of intensity) 2) the DCT coefficients are rounded to integer values, 3) (I think, long time ago) there are hardcoded quantization tables as a first pass.

            So even if you turn it all the way up, there will be significant loss. Of course, for some images, that is ok: a flat color
      • No. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Inoshiro (71693)
        The best compression PNG can get is not JPEGed, since PNG is not a lossy encoding!
        • PNG is a tagged image format. It can be a lot of things, including lossy encoded. There are provisions that allow for inclusion of custom tags. I will refer you to the JNG Image Format [libpng.org], which is just a couple of tags added to the reference PNG spec.
          • Mozilla dropped JNG (essentially JPEG with a PNG alpha channel) along with the rest of MNG because 1. Mozilla's libmng had gone unmaintained for too long, and 2. when a new maintainer stepped up to rescue MNG, pavlov (the maintainer of libpr0n, the Mozilla image handling library) continued to complain about libmng's footprint.

    • Re:Inertia (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dtfinch (661405) *
      JPEG2000 is better for images containing smooth gradients, while JPEG is better for textured surfaces. JPEG noticeably damages gradients at typical compression levels.

      To me the problem with the JPEG2000 standard has been that it's become bloated. All many of us wanted was a replacement for JPEG that supported an alpha channel and optional wavelet compression.
  • Perhaps it's because people have it set in their minds that a JPG is a JPG, and this is being touted as Yet Another Image Format. Same reason (I think) that PNG, though it is enjoying wide popularity against GIF, hasn't totally caught on yet.
    • Re:My own thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by idiotfromia (657688)

      PNG hasn't caught on because Internet Explorer has yet to properly support it.

      You can sign the petition for Internet Explorer PNG support [petitiononline.com].

      • Well, they used to support at least flat images. Now IExploder won't show any PNGs at all! It's decreased in functionality. Microsoft certainly knows how to display PNGs, because you right-click on the blank spots, and the Image Viewer shows them fine.

        At least issue a plugin!
        • I'm using 6.0 and I can see PNGs just fine. Well...as well as IE ever did.
          • Try looking at these [tephras.com] in IE, then in a browser without broken PNG support. Funny thing is, PNG support is much better in IE on the Mac than it is in Windows. I wonder what that's about.
          • I'm not seeing them at all. This is under the IE that comes with WindowsXP (home or pro). Seen the lack of PNGs on at least five systems. No special fiddling with any settings that I am aware of.

            I used to be able to see PNGs under Win98 and 2K with whatever the IE they had was. But something's changed under either WinXP, or the IE that comes with it. The area where the PNG is shows empty. No "broken image" icon, no frame, no funny colors. Just blank.

            Or am I just using the wrong "kind" of PNG's on my site?
            • It can depend on if Quicktime has been installed / associated with PNG images or not, I have had Quicktime take over display of PNG images in the past, and break PNG images imbedded into webpages in creative ways.
        • sounds like a personal issue. I use PNGs on my website wherever I would normally use a GIF. Works in IE4+ and mozilla, as long as I don't want alpha transparency. Which I do, so I'm prolly going to write in the DXFilter thing to automatically add it to each img tag that uses a png, so that it shows the alpha ones.. *shrug* Maybe some javascript to do it if possible. I've been too lazy to really look in to it, since I don't use IE. If my site validates and even vaguely resembles what it does in Mozil
          • It's already been done for you; check PNG in Windows IE [ntlworld.com]. It uses Javascript to rewrite any IMG elements containing PNG images as SPAN elements using DXImageTransform to enable the alpha channel. Obviously Javascript has to be enabled for it to work, though...
      • Re:My own thoughts (Score:5, Informative)

        by JimDabell (42870) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @07:02PM (#8049342) Homepage

        PNG hasn't caught on because Internet Explorer has yet to properly support it.

        PNG is as functional as non-animated GIF in Internet Explorer 5+, the problems are with a non-binary alpha value (totally opaque works, totally transparent works, nothing else does).

        The gamma support is the only area where it fails against the GIF format for static images. Gamma correction is built into the PNG format, whereas GIF took the approach of "don't worry about it". Differing gamma correction means that you often get mismatched colours between PNGs and neighbouring coloured areas. In practice, you can solve this for everything but older versions of Safari and Opera by configuring your graphics editor to remove all gamma information.

        For more information, read The Sad Story of PNG Gamma "Correction" [www.hut.fi].

        • Re: gamma correction (Score:3, Interesting)

          by spitzak (4019)
          Thanks for that link on Gamma correction. It does seem that some people are finally getting it, I have been trying to get this idea across for years.

          Numbers in the file should represent *specific* colors. Not some color in a "colorspace" that the file also gives. This is just like tagging text files with the "character set", it should be obvious now that making a single specification like UTF-8 is far more reliable and "just works".

          I very much recommend using the sRGB standard to represent color levels in
          • Yeah, just adjust those pictures on your laptop screen, hmmm... that looks good, take them in to print, and wonder why it's so dark (if the lab didn't correct anything), or so low contrast (if they did). Don't worry about gamma, or matching your monitor or anything. Now, I happen to love sRGB, since that's pretty much what the Fuji Frontier I use uses, but I have a some people trying to adjust things on laptops (I'm thinking of someone in particular with a Sony), and it leads to many headaches till you ge
          • Color profiles and gamma serve different purposes... Gamma is about mapping pixel values to luminance, color profiles are mainly about dealing with devices that use different primaries.

            In the video/film world we worry about gamma but don't care very much about differing primaries (we just "color correct" stuff until it "looks right" on the display). Whereas print graphics people obsess about primaries while pretty much ignoring gamma (they manually "gamma correct" stuff until it "looks right").

            It's probab
            • Perhaps one motivation for "embedded" color profiles is avoiding the need to transform 8-bit pixel values and thus introduce quantization artifacts.

              My thoughts exactly. Color profiles are only a cheap hack while we're waiting for 16 bit (or more) color channels. Once we have enough precision it doesn't matter if we have to transform between color spaces instead of tagging what different numbers are supposed to mean. And no, using 16 bit per channel doesn't take significantly more than 8 bit per channel wh

              • I'm actually unsure about my earlier statement... Profiles would only save you part of the 8-bit computation - you still have to multiply the numbers *somewhere* - and you can always dither to minimize artifacts. (although it's surprising how few image-manipulation programs bother to dither... it can be done in about 4 lines of code for crying out loud...)

                There is no perfect solution for dealing with matching primaries, because in the end three numbers aren't enough information to reconstruct the full spec
                • There is no perfect solution for dealing with matching primaries, because in the end three numbers aren't enough information to reconstruct the full spectrum of light. As soon as we get greater than 8 bits of depth, we'll have to start asking for more than 3 color components :)

                  As human eye only has sensors for three wave lengths, three numbers should be enough to represent full spectrum of light, as much as we can perceive it. We just have two problems: 1) the currently used RGB model doesn't model the c

                  • As human eye only has sensors for three wave lengths, three numbers should be enough to represent full spectrum of light, as much as we can perceive it. We just have two problems: 1) the currently used RGB model doesn't model the correct wave lengths - it's close but not perfect. 2) Every human eye has a little bit different construction. No human eye is perfect - so selecting three perfect wave lengths is impossible.

                    Not quite true. The human eye is sensitive to three regions of the spectrum, centered a
          • That means all those colorimiters and printer matching profiles and other garbage you have been scammed into buying is useless.

            That's just silly. If you want really accurate color reproduction you want color correction profiles and the like. This, of course, is only a small subset of users, but some (people doing high-end photography come to mind) it's really critical.

            Now, in theory 255,0,0 should always be pure red, but in practice you run into problems. Your screen has certain fundamental limitatio

      • I don't particularly create websites, as I do Intranet systems. I just recommend Firebird anytime someone complains about graphics.

    • Re:My own thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nkodengar (622810)

      Perhaps it's because people have it set in their minds that a JPG is a JPG, and this is being touted as Yet Another Image Format. Same reason (I think) that PNG, though it is enjoying wide popularity against GIF, hasn't totally caught on yet.

      PNG images are fantastic if quality is an issue and bandwidth is not, the alpha transparency is also fantastic for web designers, and many fantastic effects can be done with it. Unfortunately only users with good web browsers will see the benefits of png transparency

  • by L. VeGas (580015) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @06:58PM (#8049294) Homepage Journal
    I use JPEG XP.
  • by molo (94384) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @06:59PM (#8049305) Journal
    When he says PNG, I think he means JNG, which is basicly a standard JPEG plus transparency. JNG is from the MNG suite (same people who gave us PNG).

    More info here:
    http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/spec/jng.html [libpng.org]

    Abstract:
    JNG is a lossy single-image member of the PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format family. It encapsulates a JPEG datastream in PNG-style chunks, along with an optional alpha channel and ancillary chunks that carry color-space information and comments. While JNG is primarily intended as a subformat of the MNG (Multiple-image Network Graphics) format, standalone JNG files are also possible.

    -molo
  • hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    no one knows about it? i'm a freelance artist at times and this is the first time i've heard of it. gif 4 life
    • O'Reilly ran an article on it.
      [oreillynet.com]
      http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/4370

      JPEG2000 can compress lossless bitmap images more than zip/lzw tiffs, by a factor of 2 or more. It's great for archiving, but slow to create files. Quicktime has decent support for both lossless and lossy compression. I'm running out of disk space fast, and am looking into any archiving solution I can.
  • by Carnildo (712617) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @07:03PM (#8049358) Homepage Journal
    The big problem with JPEG2000, as I see it, is a lack of a free, open-source implementation that is compatible with closed-source, proprietary software. I was recently looking into implementing JPEG and JPEG2000 support for my company's main product. Since this is a relatively minor feature for our product, we didn't want to pay the licensing fees for a commercial implementation. The libJPEG codec for JPEG compression has a very nice license, only requiring the addition of two lines to the software documentation. The only open-source JPEG2000 implementation (JasPer) requires adding over a page of disclaimers, copyright notifications, and license terms.
    • "The big problem with JPEG2000, as I see it, is a lack of a free, open-source implementation that is compatible with closed-source, proprietary software."

      As a content developer/artist, I'm finding the big problem with JPG2k to be lack of solid Photoshop and IE support. Bummer, too, because I want to use it.

      (Note: It's been almost a year since I looked into it, so clarification would be much appreeciated.)
      • Photoshop CS (PS 8) supports JPEG2K natively. It is also available as a $99 plug-in, which also includes a digital camera raw plug-in, for Photoshop 7.
        • Well, in CS it's not exactly "native." There's an optional plug-in you have to manually install later. You can find it on the Photoshop CS CD in the "extra options and goodies" or whatever it's called folder.

          PS support for JPEG2000 is great and all, but something's missing. I'm a professional photographer, and while some aspects of JPEG2000 intrigue me, there's the problem that my cameras all capture JPEG (or RAW, of course), and the pro labs where I print only accept files in JPEG or TIFF. Give me a c
    • Second Life's case, images as large as 2048x2048 are delivered interactively to the client viewer, with a single packet providing enough detail for distant textures. As the user approaches textures, additional packets are delivered to the client, providing a progressive increase in detail with very low latency, thanks to Jpeg2000's ability to deliver fine-grained increases

      So if I understand. Jpeg2000 format is layered, with each additional layer delivering higher detail, when you downloaded all the layer
      • So if I understand. Jpeg2000 format is layered, with each additional layer delivering higher detail, when you downloaded all the layers you have the full high resolution image.

        The same is true of current JPEG, PNG, and GIF. It's called a progressive [netadvies.nl] or interlaced [libpng.org] image - as it loads, it starts as a blocky blur and sharpens into the image. The effect is much more noticable when browsing the web with a 56k modem.

        Doesn't Ogg Vorbis do something like this, your bandwidth determines how many layers you can str

      • "Not to familiar with PNG, does it also use wavelet compression?"

        Nope. PNG uses lossless LZ77 encoding, also used by gzip.

  • by booch (4157)
    I'm wondering when the CSS 3 standard will be completed. It started in 1999, I think. Four years is pretty long, considering how quickly the first 2 versions came out.

    I seem to recall Fortran 90 finally coming out in maybe 1993 or so. I think they were originally going to call it Fortran 88.

    I guess there are several problems: 1) standards are designed by committee; 2) unlike the first revision of a standard, more people are involved, each having their own agenda; 3) they want to test out the features in a
  • Example pictures (Score:5, Informative)

    by FattMattP (86246) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @07:14PM (#8049471) Homepage
    If anyone is interested I found an article here [dpreview.com] that shows the difference between JPEG and JPEG2000 pictures. I found the original reference to this article in this slashdot comment [slashdot.org].
    • that shows the difference between JPEG and JPEG2000

      It probably shows all the examples in ordinary JPEG, or else most people can't view it.

      Rather like a television commercial showing you how good high-definition television is -- while showing you the results on your plain ordinary every-day television. Like how are you ever supposed to see the difference?

    • The link (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0108/01080401lurajp e g2000.asp) 404'd on me. When I went to http://www.dpreview.com/ I got:

      Dear Visitor,

      During a simple piece of routine maintenance a fault developed in the RAID subsystem of our primary server. Despite our hosting provider's best efforts they were not able to recover any data. We are now rebuilding to a completely new machine from backup but the process may take some time. Please accept my apologies for this unannounced downtime and have our assur
  • by Critter92 (522977) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @07:32PM (#8049668)

    I can't speak to the standard, but I can cover our experiences using Jpeg2000. In early 2001, the Second Life [secondlife.com] team did an evaluation of available still image compression schemes in order to determine whether an off-the-shelf solution would meet our requirements of providing flawless visual reproduction at 10:1 compression while preserving chroma at compressions of 100:1 or more, allowing progressive streaming in order to handle level of detail and mipmapping, and be high performance enough to allow for multiple packet decodes per game frame. We went into the search assuming that we would end up having to write out own compression scheme and were pleasantly surprised by the performance of Jpeg2000. We selected the Kakadu [kakadusoftware.com] libraries for Jpeg2000 compression and decompression and have been happily using them for 3 years on Linux, Mac, and Windows.

    It is a shame that Jpeg2000 hasn't seen wider adoption, as it is visually far superior to Jpeg at similar compression levels, especially in reduced "ringing" around high-frequency edges, and its ability to handle progressive streaming is incredibly useful in interactive environments. In Second Life's case, images as large as 2048x2048 are delivered interactively to the client viewer, with a single packet providing enough detail for distant textures. As the user approaches textures, additional packets are delivered to the client, providing a progressive increase in detail with very low latency, thanks to Jpeg2000's ability to deliver fine-grained increases. Kakadu's high performance has also been critical, since many scenes in Second Life have thousands of different textures in view because of user created and uploaded textures.

    • It is a shame that Jpeg2000 hasn't seen wider adoption, as it is visually far superior to Jpeg at similar compression levels, especially in reduced "ringing" around high-frequency edges, and its ability to handle progressive streaming is incredibly useful in interactive environments. In Second Life's case, images as large as 2048x2048 are delivered interactively to the client viewer...

      I think you have inadvertently identified why JPEG2000 hasn't seen wider adoption. It has nice features like progressi

      • I think you have inadvertently identified why JPEG2000 hasn't seen wider adoption. It has nice features like progressive refinement, which are important for very large images. For images that are 800x600 and down, the user gets the full resolution on one screen and has little use for the new capability.

        I'd would love to design web sites where I could use large JPEG2000 images for pretty much all pixel based graphics. Need and image that works as an image? Put an 1024x1024 pixel image there and let the bro

  • by SiMac (409541) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @07:43PM (#8049784) Homepage
    JPEG2000 will not become incredibly popular on the web, I think. It's not really necessary anymore, as broadband is catching on and 200K image downloads aren't such a big deal. On a digital camera, however, file size still makes a difference. The more pictures you can store on a small piece of flash memory, the better.

    Photoshop and several other image applications either support JPEG2000 or have plug-ins available, but it doesn't seem to have caught on anywhere yet. Here's hoping for a firmware upgrade for my current camera.
    • You're forgeting one little thing. Printers. My pro lab don't truck with no JPEG2000. JPEG or TIFF only. I don't know if a Fuji Frontier or Noritsu or whatever can accept a JPEG2000, but even if they can, I've never seen a pro lab advertise it. If you have to convert every image you want to print to a JPEG or TIFF, then it kinda defeats the point on quality (JPEG) or file size (TIFF).
      • Except for the case where you use JPEG2000 to store on your camera either more images of the same visual quality or the same number of images of images of a higher quality than JPEG can manage, then deliver them to your print shop as TIFFs.
    • When I researched JPEG2000 for a defense contractor in 2001, the word was that ASICs would need at least another generation of improvement before cameras could handle JPEG2000.

      Network transfers were viewed as the immediate application for the codec. Modern desktop processors can display JPEG2000 with little if any noticeable latency, and the compression is great for non-broadband networking.

      I think the spread of broadband has been fast enough to limit JPEG2000's usefulness on the consumer market until ca
  • What about DjVu? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Myself (57572) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @08:52PM (#8050523) Journal
    I came across this format years ago and had to do some digging to find it again, it seems revolutionary but obscure:
    One of the main technologies behind
    DjVu [djvuzone.org] is the ability to separate an image into a background layer (i.e., paper texture and pictures) and foreground layer (text and line drawings). Traditional image compression techniques are fine for simple photographs, but they drastically degrade sharp color transitions between adjacent highly contrasted areas - which is why they render type so poorly. By separating the text from the backgrounds, DjVu can keep the text at high resolution (thereby preserving the sharp edges and maximizing legibility), while at the same time compressing the backgrounds and pictures at lower resolution with a wavelet-based compression technique.

    • DjVu is awesome. We use it extensively where I work. We have hundreds of thousands of pages of data archived in the DjVu format.

      There are good opensource decoders and compressors out there and an opensource browser plugin; however, the main problem with encoding a DjVu image is that you have to split the (losslessly compressed SjBz) foreground out from the (highly compressed IW44) background when you begin the compression, and there are no good open algorithms for doing that. Commercial software, unfortuna
  • It's worth noting that Yahoo! Messenger [yahoo.com] uses Kakadu's implementation of JPEG2000 in its webcam controls.

    For proof, view someone's webcam - then check your %TEMP% directory. You'll see image-[username].jpg files. View them in a JPEG2000 viewer or convert them using Kakadu's tools, and you'll see a frame of the cam you were watching.

  • coming soon, really! (Score:4, Informative)

    by andrewleung (48567) <rockin@gmail.com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:00AM (#8052218)
    JPEG2000 is a huge standard. i know, i am actively following it now and was part of the standards process. new parts are still emerging but the core codec work is done.

    still, the greatest issue is the patent question... the JPEG patent issue that came up 2 years ago really caused everyone to rethink their JPEG2000 deployment scheme. there is a new project in the ISO group to ensure a baseline license-fee free JPEG2000 codec to ensure the same patent problem won't happen again.

    other notes:
    JPEG2000 won't kill JPEG... ever. digital cameras just made sure of that. all the digital cameras out there record directly to JPEG... no way to upgrade them to JPEG2000.

    camera makers still waiting for JPEG2000 chips to be a drop-in replacement for JPEG chips... the biggest hurdle now is power consumption.

    initial JPEG2000 cameras will probably also record to JPEG... i.e. backwards compatibility.

    JPEG2000 is designed to fix all the problems of JPEG and bring improved functionality. this is more than just a 1-trick pony (i.e. H.264...) with JPEG2000, it has improved on all aspects of JPEG and also:
    -scalability: read x% of the file, get x% of the image, no need to pull file format tricks or extra redundancies.
    -error resilience: as the compression level increases, the compressed codestream becomes more fragile. lose 1% of the compressed codestream, expect 10% loss... especially compared with MPEG codecs. JPEG2000 error resiliency is 10x better than MPEG-4 (part1) and probably much better than H.264...
    -multi-resolution and position based decoding: only want to see 1 part of the image? no problems. only decode that part of the image.
    -"visually lossless": a single codestream can act as: lossless archive, visually lossless print-ready format, lossy distribution, and thumbnail. no redundancies. no transcoding.

    the kakadu library at: http://www.kakadusoftware.com is VERY good. it has a lot of tools you can use right away. check out the KDU_server app.

    more things to expect from JPEG2000:
    -more metadata
    -better workflow solutions (i.e. capture->process->print->archive)
    -unified still & motion cameras (i.e. 1codec, 2 applications: stills and movies. thanks to standardized file formats)
    -true network imaging (i.e. JPIP)
    -secure images (i.e. JPSEC) and from that, a better imaging business model.

    browser plugins: trivial. really. especially if you use the available libraries.

    things holding back the standard now: hardware support. there is a lot of software out there but until we get that killer JPEG2000 app, that software will not be touched.

    JPEG does a great job, JPEG2000 will do a greater one.
    • all the digital cameras out there record directly to JPEG... no way to upgrade them to JPEG2000.
      If a Kodak DC265 can have MAME installed, I'm sure that many of the cameras out there now can be upgraded to JPEG2000 with a BIOS upgrade or a 3rd-party plug-in.

      JPEG2000 will become standard the moment IE will properly display one via the standard img tag, rather than that embed or object crap.

  • See Mozilla's Bugzilla bug 36351.

    Jasper doesn't support incremental image decoding, it requires that the whole image is loaded before it's decoded - that's the main reason Mozilla didn't use Jasper.
  • http://public.migrator2000.org/J2Kdemonstrator/ind ex.xalter

    As usual, mung the space.
  • I looked into writing a JPEG2000 pixbuf loader for GTK2 once. The only open-source-ish implementation I could find was JasPer, which had too many licensing requirements to be useful. I tried to find the specifications, but not even the baseline specs are free. So I said "Screw this" and abandoned the idea of ever supporting JPEG2000 in anything, and I suspect I'm not alone.

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." -- Bullwinkle Moose

Working...