JPG 2000

[oops]

I tried some "JPEG2000-16 bit" proofs from CRW files in BreezeBrowser rather than the normal jpg and the difference is shocking! The .jp2 (this is what BreezeBrowser calls it) was so much better than .jpg that I figured a life-changing discovery was at hand. If you have never tried it, check it out.

The problem seems to be that "Jpg 2000" is a format that many people are trying to dominate for financial reasons and they are not cooperating with anyone else.

The BreezeBrowser .jp2 can't be read by anything I own except BreezeBrowser. I downloaded two other JPEG 2000 viewers and neither of those would read the BreezeBrowser files, only their own. They use any number of .jxx and there seems to be no compatability between images created with competing programs.

Chris gives us the option to use a format that appears to be much better than .jpg, but is it valid or a waste of time?

[lziering]

It won't read the file even if you change the file extension to .jpf?

[James Knowles]

oops wrote:
I tried some "JPEG2000-16 bit" proofs from CRW files in BreezeBrowser rather than the normal jpg and the difference is shocking! The .jp2 (this is what BreezeBrowser calls it) was so much better than .jpg that I figured a life-changing discovery was at hand.

Oops, can you describe the ways in which the j2000 image was better? Thanks

[oops]

lziering wrote:
It won't read the file even if you change the file extension to .jpf?

No luck there, either. I did, however, discover a link on the BreezeBrowser site to the LuraTech website where I was able to download a ActiveX patch which enables viewing of JPG2000 files in the IE browser (they also have Netscape) and a demo plug-in for PhotoShop. The demo will allow viewing JPG2000 from PS but not saving.

These two downloads make me feel better about using the JPG2000 format as it appears there is support for the format and it can only get better.

Chris

[oops]

James Knowles wrote:
Oops, can you describe the ways in which the j2000 image was better? Thanks

Well, to my eye they were much, much crisper than a standard .jpg. Also, when using the 16-bit JPG2000 proof, the file sizes were quite large @ 5 meg. This can't hurt image clarity, either.

Try this: Take a series of raw files and create proofs in BreezeBrowser using standard .jpg and again using JPG2000 16-bit. Both sets of proofs will be in the same folder so, when you open the "proofs" folder in BB, you will view each one alternately. This should help you evaluate each proof and decide if you like the difference.

It may be a personal choice for each person but, to me, the JPG2000 is much sharper and worth a good look.

Chris

[soumya63]

I do agree, the quality improvement is significant, but in expense of file size. This format is no good for web publishing or email. The standard JPG file size is 29KB and the JPG200 8 bit with same quality setting is taking 373KB. Moreover it appears to have no space for EXIF information.


soumya
http://www.mitraphoto.com

[oops]

soumya63 wrote:
I do agree, the quality improvement is significant, but in expense of file size. This format is no good for web publishing or email. The standard JPG file size is 29KB and the JPG200 8 bit with same quality setting is taking 373KB. Moreover it appears to have no space for EXIF information.


soumya
http://www.mitraphoto.com



Hmm. I didn't notice the EXIF but you are correct. I think as this format evolves many of these issues may be addressed. If not, then somebody has spent lots of time and money for nothing, unless the actual application for this format is something other than photographer's needs.

In fact, go to:
http://www.aware.com/products/compression/jpeg2000_g.html
It would seem many of the file size vs. quality issues are already being exploited with some cutting edge results. I can't imagine a 6.1 kb looking this good. The downside, as I stated before, is a proprietary .jpg extention and format that can't be used with other programs.

Frankly, having been ripped off by the Sony BetaMax system years ago, I will download their "freebies" for now and wait for the winner to shake out.

Chris

[Roger_Cavanagh]

JPEG2000 will give much better quality than standard JPG with comparable files sizes. It also has a completely lossless option and a 16-bit mode both of which are not available in standard JPG.

It doesn't have EXIF support yet and is not supported by many applications.

The Lurawave plug-in seems a daft amount of money, but there are other options: Adobe have bundled it with Camera Raw (not sure why) and there is a free plug-in available here http://www.fnordware.com - also a 16-bit PNG one.

BB can output 16-bit JP2 files: output is slow, but it gives a 13mb 10D file compared to 37mb TIFF.

Regards,