Cameras forum

General discussion

Does Anyone Use JPEG2000 Yet?

I take lots of photos in the highest possible quality on my digital camera @ 7.2MP in Tiff file format and have just started converting Tiff into JPEG2000 instead of the normal Jpeg that's lossy. I want to convert my thousands of JPEG family photos to this 'friendly' format, but what you you think?

So just to clarify my point, irrespective of the file sizes in general, is there real benefits to be had from saving in this newer JPEG2000 lossless format?

These are my main pro's and cons of this subject.

Pros:
-Make adjustments to the original photos and save over and over again without any loss in quality.
-Saves colour profiles.
-Not totally sure on this but i'm sure there was an option for saving layers in PhotoShop.
-Option of saving in different types of JPEG2000 file formats, there's around 5 file formats that comes under JPEG2000. If you want the file extensions I can provide them at a later date on request.
-Can also use lossy compression to save space.

Cons:
-File sizes are much larger than regular JPEG, but still better than Tiff and Adobe's PSD format that can leave you gasping at the huge files sizes. (Roughly; a normal 2MB JPEG image imported into PhotoShop saves at 100% quality and at just under 1/4 of the file sizes = 500Kb in JPEG2000).
-Not yet widely accessible and requires plugins for InfranView or PhotoShop to view.
-Digital Camera's don't make use of this despite the benefits to made over lossy Jpeg for GREAT quality instead of saving as Tiff's or RAW image formats.

Those were my main points to consider and the benefits of future digital camera having to save as a widely accepted compatible format under JPEG2000 is there for all the see, so that hopefully sometime in the near future, nobody will have to save 'lossy' images anymore!

The horror at times I see friends and relatives who give me their photos to edit and burn only to see in PhotoShop the horrible artefacts within the images. This is despite setting everything up for the best possible picture on compact digital camera. The photos took are just fun photos out on the move but as we move on through the years - you'll see the difference as things will without doubt get much better.

It's not all about how good digital camera are getting but also how good they save them on memory card without any compression but still allow for plenty of photos to be took on them. I'm not thinking about CompactFlash for pros but regular SD, xD Memory Sticks, etc...

Let me know how you see the future of this new file format and whether you intend to use it or not. Have you even heard of it and how?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Does Anyone Use JPEG2000 Yet?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Does Anyone Use JPEG2000 Yet?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
JPEG2000

In reply to: Does Anyone Use JPEG2000 Yet?

Collapse -
JPEG2000

In reply to: JPEG2000

This will be the first time I have heard of the JPEG2000. News to me. The only thing I know about JPEG is do not do a number of save as to a file over and over. The image quality goes down as you save as each time.
The original poster has a lot of good information there.
Normally I do a save as to Photoshop once into a JPEG format. The original file is still the original and I will save that as an EPS for professional use. The original file is still the original image file and not loosey at all.

Kevin

Collapse -
JPEG isn't JPEG2000

In reply to: JPEG2000

You can save over and over again if you want with JPEG2000 but you can't with the normal JPEG.

As I explained in my orignal post, JPEG saves as a lossy format; meaning that saving it over and over WILL degrade the quality. But JPEG2000 saves as lossless; meaning that you can save as many times as you want without any degrade in quality.

With one example of the file size of JPEG2000, I saved one copy with PSD (Adobe Photoshop) and the output size was 9.5Mb. I saved the same image with JPEG2000 and the output file size was only 2.5Mb. With JPEG you could get this down to 200-300Kb but with loss of quality unlike JPEG2000.

UPDATE: With JPEG2000 you CAN'T save layers, if the base-layer is a non-background layer and contains transparent pixels then checking the Include Transparancy box will preserve the transparancy. This will be helpful in the future for web designers when web browsers are able to regonise the JPEG2000 format.

It is different to the standard JPEG format because it has more extensive features such as: 16-but per channel image (can't do this normal JPEG), save alpha channels and paths and preserve the camera's EXIF and other metadata when you save as JPEG2000. I

Collapse -
JPEG2000 Is Slowish...

In reply to: JPEG isn't JPEG2000

UPDATE2:
I've been getting all my JPEG images transferred to the JPEG2000 format but saving in this mode compared to other well developed formats is a lot slower. You have to wait about 3-5 second to save as the lossless format in Photoshop CS2. But my main issue is looking back at the files created in this format, JPF, takes 4 seconds to open a 2.3MB file.

Normal JPEG opens instantly. By the way, I use InfranView for looking back at photos full-screen so I can quickly go through them. Plus Infranview isn't a resource hog and it FREE! But you do need the plugins to save in JPEG2000 format from Infranviews website.

When JPEG first came out, was it slow like this at first until it became popular with more applications? If the company behind JPEG2000 can sort out this issue and get it into more applications as standard as oppose to installing plugins, then this format will be bigger than JPEG.

Collapse -
What is the advantage of JPEG2000?

In reply to: JPEG isn't JPEG2000

"With one example of the file size of JPEG2000, I saved one copy with PSD (Adobe Photoshop) and the output size was 9.5Mb. I saved the same image with JPEG2000 and the output file size was only 2.5Mb. With JPEG you could get this down to 200-300Kb but with loss of quality unlike JPEG2000."

What would be the size if the same image is saved in compressed (lzw or zip) TIFF? Since a TIFF file, compressed or not, preserves all the layers, what is the advantage of using JPEG2000?

Collapse -
Benefit Of JPEG2000 & Filesizes Put To The Test

In reply to: What is the advantage of JPEG2000?

QUOTE: ''What would be the size if the same image is saved in compressed (lzw or zip) TIFF? Since a TIFF file, compressed or not, preserves all the layers, what is the advantage of using JPEG2000?'' -by mdx1

Right, I'll start on a new ditigal photo of two people on a boat. This image when open sizes up at 21.4Mb. When saved in JPEG at 10 quality (10 is the default for getting the best for quality and getting the right size) in Photoshop saves it at 3.67Mb, very reasonable.

In PSD the size is 19Mb - very bad output size for storing thousands of digital photos but exceptional quality for studio work. This is the format for the pros.

For the TIFF format (in LZW & ZIP compression plus no compression). LZW size was 9.87Mb, ZIP size was 9.36Mb and finally without any TIFF compression the output size was 22.44MB, bigger than even PSD.

In JPEG2000 format with lossless selected (meaning no loss in quality at all) the filesize was 7.53Mb. This is just over twice the size of a normal JPEG.

Thoughts:
Both PSD and TIFF formats save layers while neither JPEG or JPEG2000 does not. This shouldn't be seen as a bad thing because the JPEG2000 can preserve quality using vastly improved compression techniques that no other format can come anywhere near (This is only in the cases where you need to open, save, open, save, etc for a format that prevserves quality unlike the older JPEG).

Plus not everyone wants to save layers. For those that do there are PSD and TIFF to chose from, but the times when you just need to touch a photo up or remove redeye, a simple fix and save with JPEG2000 comes in handy over PSD and TIFF for filesize. It's filesizes that make or break file formats. That's why JPEG is everywhere on the internet and why people use this format to send photos in emails and why digital cameras have took up support. This is why I see JPEG2000 overtaking JPEG in the next 10-15 years.

Collapse -
I believe jpeg has lost a lot of its appeal as the owner has

In reply to: Does Anyone Use JPEG2000 Yet?

tried to cash in on its status as a 'standard'. I don't know of anyone who talks much about new jpeg formats. One question is; 'Will software in the future be able to open the file?'. That's not at all clear. Once I get my images out of raw format, I save as tif.

Collapse -
Various Support For JPEG2000

In reply to: I believe jpeg has lost a lot of its appeal as the owner has

Yes, even though it relatively new, it has gained support from various applications such as Infranview via plugins from website, Adobe Photoshop via plugins. It's not supported by Windows XP by the built-in image apps but I hope it'll be supported by Windows VISTA.

I know it's not the same having to download the formats to integrate into your software but this is how all formats start off. I'm sure there's more software out there that supports JPEG2000 so if people could post their findings under this post then we will be able to find out how big the support really is.

I would have to agree with you be cautious about saving in any new format that many people don't regonise yet and keep saving as either TIFF or PSD. If you save as PSD the filesizes are a bit smaller, maybe a couple of megabytes is the difference. Read my previous thread to find out more.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.