new jpeg2000 format?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using a
scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc. I
haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or not.
in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down to
1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from my
photo printer.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

In article <1079crhheqti112@corp.supernews.com>, dgvxfcsrt@okghbvg.org
says...
>
>I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using a
>scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
>which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
>jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc. I
>haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or not.
>in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down to
>1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
>common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
>anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
>files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from my
>photo printer.


Exactly, what's the point if programs cannot open it? Browsers dont know
about JPG2000, and many image programs dont know about it either. JPG2000 is
still new, perhaps they will some day, but many dont today.

8 to 1 compression is definitely a quality loss. The losses may be below
your own threshold, but JPG is lossy compression. JPG2000 basically gets
soft (fuzzy) instead of adding artifacts, but it just aint the same as a
better image. A higher Quality setting (maybe 4:1 or 2:1 file size) will be
a better quality image. A TIF file will be better yet (browsers dont do TIF
either).
--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

Wayne Fulton posted:
"... Browsers dont know about JPG2000, and many image programs dont know about it either.
<snip>
A TIF file will be better yet (browsers dont do TIF either).
...."

That's part of the reason I personally do not use either of the "JPEG" compression
formats. However, you should take a look at PNG. It has many of the advantages of TIF ...
and most of the major browsers *do* know about it.

See
http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/

Abstract
This document describes PNG (Portable Network Graphics), an extensible file format for the
lossless, portable, well-compressed storage of raster images. PNG provides a patent-free
replacement for GIF and can also replace many common uses of TIFF. Indexed-color,
grayscale, and truecolor images are supported, plus an optional alpha channel. Sample
depths range from 1 to 16 bits.

PNG is designed to work well in online viewing applications, such as the World Wide Web,
so it is fully streamable with a progressive display option. PNG is robust, providing both
full file integrity checking and simple detection of common transmission errors. Also, PNG
can store gamma and chromaticity data for improved color matching on heterogeneous
platforms.

This specification defines an Internet Media Type image/png.

http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG-Rationale.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG-GammaAppendix.html
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html


The disadvantages are shown on some of the pages referenced above, but one of the primary
ones is no support for alternate color spaces ... such as CMYK, etcetera. However for
archiving use, or for illustrations used on web pages, this is not a problem.

Disadvantages include

There is no uncompressed variant of PNG. It is possible to store uncompressed data by
using only uncompressed deflate blocks (a feature normally used to guarantee that deflate
does not make incompressible data much larger). However, PNG software must support full
deflate/inflate; any software that does not is not compliant with the PNG standard. The
two most important features of PNG---portability and compression---are absolute
requirements for online applications, and users demand them. Failure to support full
deflate/inflate compromises both of these objectives.

There is no lossy compression in PNG. Existing formats such as JFIF already handle lossy
compression well. Furthermore, available lossy compression methods (e.g., JPEG) are far
from foolproof --- a poor choice of quality level can ruin an image. To avoid user
confusion and unintentional loss of information, we feel it is best to keep lossy and
lossless formats strictly separate. Also, lossy compression is complex to implement.
Adding JPEG support to a PNG decoder might increase its size by an order of magnitude.
This would certainly cause some decoders to omit support for the feature, which would
destroy our goal of interchangeability.

There is no support for CMYK or other unusual color spaces. Again, this is in the name of
promoting portability. CMYK, in particular, is far too device-dependent to be useful as a
portable image representation.

There is no standard chunk for thumbnail views of images. In discussions with software
vendors who use thumbnails in their products, it has become clear that most would not use
a "standard" thumbnail chunk. For one thing, every vendor has a different idea of what the
dimensions and characteristics of a thumbnail ought to be. Also, some vendors keep
thumbnails in separate files to accommodate varied image formats; they are not going to
stop doing that simply because of a thumbnail chunk in one new format. Proprietary chunks
containing vendor-specific thumbnails appear to be more practical than a common thumbnail
format.

PNG also does not support multiple images in one file. (Note: TIFF does).

It is worth noting that private extensions to PNG could easily add these features. They
are not, however, included as part of the basic PNG standard.








"Wayne Fulton" <nospam@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:i5ednWqSaJ3UW-jd4p2dnA@august.net...
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

forget jpeg for archiving. Unless you try them in lossless mode. yes,
BOTH jpeg formats are lossless if required. The problem is, to find a
program to open files. Irfanview is free and does the job.
But DVD burners are dirt cheap, so save your images in TIFF or PNG (16
bit if your scans are above 8 bit limit).



On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:38:16 -0500, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
wrote:

>In article <1079crhheqti112@corp.supernews.com>, dgvxfcsrt@okghbvg.org
>says...
>>
>>I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using a
>>scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
>>which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
>>jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc. I
>>haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or not.
>>in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down to
>>1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
>>common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
>>anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
>>files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from my
>>photo printer.
>
>
>Exactly, what's the point if programs cannot open it? Browsers dont know
>about JPG2000, and many image programs dont know about it either. JPG2000 is
>still new, perhaps they will some day, but many dont today.
>
>8 to 1 compression is definitely a quality loss. The losses may be below
>your own threshold, but JPG is lossy compression. JPG2000 basically gets
>soft (fuzzy) instead of adding artifacts, but it just aint the same as a
>better image. A higher Quality setting (maybe 4:1 or 2:1 file size) will be
>a better quality image. A TIF file will be better yet (browsers dont do TIF
>either).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

I have been experimenting with saving my slide scans in 32 bit and 48 bit,
so with that in mind, would tiff be the best format for digital archiving?


"friend®" <me.at.home@universe.org> wrote in message
news:n3sb70hs44prf0bkad2cr0vbs42q2p04ce@4ax.com...
> forget jpeg for archiving. Unless you try them in lossless mode. yes,
> BOTH jpeg formats are lossless if required. The problem is, to find a
> program to open files. Irfanview is free and does the job.
> But DVD burners are dirt cheap, so save your images in TIFF or PNG (16
> bit if your scans are above 8 bit limit).
>
>
>
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:38:16 -0500, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1079crhheqti112@corp.supernews.com>, dgvxfcsrt@okghbvg.org
> >says...
> >>
> >>I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides)
using a
> >>scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000
format
> >>which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image
in
> >>jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6
etc. I
> >>haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or
not.
> >>in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down
to
> >>1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by
other
> >>common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
> >>anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
> >>files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from
my
> >>photo printer.
> >
> >
> >Exactly, what's the point if programs cannot open it? Browsers dont know
> >about JPG2000, and many image programs dont know about it either.
JPG2000 is
> >still new, perhaps they will some day, but many dont today.
> >
> >8 to 1 compression is definitely a quality loss. The losses may be below
> >your own threshold, but JPG is lossy compression. JPG2000 basically gets
> >soft (fuzzy) instead of adding artifacts, but it just aint the same as a
> >better image. A higher Quality setting (maybe 4:1 or 2:1 file size) will
be
> >a better quality image. A TIF file will be better yet (browsers dont do
TIF
> >either).
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

In article <107c0sr530qq860@corp.supernews.com>, dgvxfcsrt@okghbvg.org
says...
>
>
>I have been experimenting with saving my slide scans in 32 bit and 48 bit,
>so with that in mind, would tiff be the best format for digital archiving?


Sure, TIF is an excellent choice, and about the only choice. TIF will handle
32 and 48 bit files, and most other files like JPG wont. JPG is lossy
compression anyway, which seems very penny wise and pound foolish when
archiving any important image. You'd hope the archived master is the highest
possible quality, and storage space is dirt cheap today.

32 bit implies CMYK files, which would only have use for prepress.

PNG specifications include 48 bits, but most programs (like IrfanView) are
not 16 bit capable, and Photoshop (one that is) wont save 16 bit PNG files.

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

I use TIF, sometimes PNG. Photoshop saves my scans in 16 bit mode,
even though my scanner does only 12 bits.


On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:00:07 -0600, "Bob Smith" <dgvxfcsrt@okghbvg.org>
wrote:

>I have been experimenting with saving my slide scans in 32 bit and 48 bit,
>so with that in mind, would tiff be the best format for digital archiving?
>
>
>"friend®" <me.at.home@universe.org> wrote in message
>news:n3sb70hs44prf0bkad2cr0vbs42q2p04ce@4ax.com...
>> forget jpeg for archiving. Unless you try them in lossless mode. yes,
>> BOTH jpeg formats are lossless if required. The problem is, to find a
>> program to open files. Irfanview is free and does the job.
>> But DVD burners are dirt cheap, so save your images in TIFF or PNG (16
>> bit if your scans are above 8 bit limit).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:38:16 -0500, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1079crhheqti112@corp.supernews.com>, dgvxfcsrt@okghbvg.org
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >>I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides)
>using a
>> >>scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000
>format
>> >>which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image
>in
>> >>jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6
>etc. I
>> >>haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or
>not.
>> >>in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down
>to
>> >>1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by
>other
>> >>common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
>> >>anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
>> >>files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from
>my
>> >>photo printer.
>> >
>> >
>> >Exactly, what's the point if programs cannot open it? Browsers dont know
>> >about JPG2000, and many image programs dont know about it either.
>JPG2000 is
>> >still new, perhaps they will some day, but many dont today.
>> >
>> >8 to 1 compression is definitely a quality loss. The losses may be below
>> >your own threshold, but JPG is lossy compression. JPG2000 basically gets
>> >soft (fuzzy) instead of adding artifacts, but it just aint the same as a
>> >better image. A higher Quality setting (maybe 4:1 or 2:1 file size) will
>be
>> >a better quality image. A TIF file will be better yet (browsers dont do
>TIF
>> >either).
>>
>

 

[fugitive]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:05:47 -0600, "Bob Smith" <dgvxfcsrt@okghbvg.org>
wrote:

>
>
>I have been digitally archiving our old family pics (mostly slides) using a
>scanner. I have recently been experimenting with the new jpeg 2000 format
>which is quite exiting. the problem I am having is when I save an image in
>jpeg2k I can't seem to open it in any common applications such as IE6 etc. I
>haven't tested whether in fact it can be opened in a home DVD player or not.
>in general it is quite amazing, allowing me to scrunch an 8 MB file down to
>1 MB without any quality loss, however if it can't be recognized by other
>common applications then what's the point? does anyone out there know
>anything more about getting windows/browsers to recognize and open these
>files? it's of particular importance when it comes to making prints from my
>photo printer.
>
>Bob
>



PSP 8 handles the new 2000. Png is also good. PSP is at jasc.com/ free
trial.













Gallery http://www.picturetrail.com/fugitive1
http://gregsplace.50megs.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

In article <haqd70p6tbeppgnr8h3nar0c59ptqnnnvg@4ax.com>,
gregfarr@earthlink.net says...

> PSP 8 handles the new 2000. Png is also good. PSP is at jasc.com/ free
> trial.

Trouble with PNG for the web is that it writes to disk at much larger
file size than JPEG, almost to full pixel dimension size ala TIFF.
At least making them in Photoshop.

Just did test nice looking JPEG, 324x414 pixels, 33k, saved that as PNG,
300k.

I understand JPEG has to decompress to full pixel size in memory (which
is actually about 393k), but it does so quicker than the PNG opens.

Not to mention the huge diff in disk byte size which is a consideration
on your web server space if you have beau coup images.

Mac