What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
139 Comments
- aahpandasrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+182the name "JPEG 2000" also sounds like something that dates back to 1986.
- cwshea, on 10/12/2007, -4/+147"No current web browsers can render JPEG 2000 (.jp2) images"
- pintong, on 10/12/2007, -11/+95Ahh, it seems Quicktime is stepping in to render them. Digg down previous comments :-/
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+80Photos: Use JPG.
Images with a limited color palette (ie. icons, buttons, cartoons): Use GIF or preferably PNG.
If it falls somewhere between, try both and pick the one with the best size/quality to suit your needs.
There. War over. - bmcnett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+58The summary doesn't mention that JPEG2000 images are sorted by level of detail - arguably its most important feature.
A web server can store a single gigabyte JPEG2000 file, and a web page can display it as a 128x165 thumbnail. Your browser starts loading this gigabyte file, and stops when it gets to 128x165, just a few kilobytes in. Click on the image and the browser can continue loading until 1280x1650 and stop, just a few hundred kilobytes in. Print the image, and the browser can continue loading until 2550x3300, or whatever resolution your printer needs. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59"so what you're seeing are extremely high quality JPEG versions of the JPEG 2000 images"
- cdmarcus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52PNG is for completely different types of images. PNGs are lossless, and compress repetitive graphics and things like diagrams and screenshots really well. JPEGs are lossy and can compress photos way more efficiently than PNGs.
- Tonamel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44@pintong
It looks like it's not FF that's rendering it, but rather the QuickTime plugin. At least for me.
Aaaand... you noticed it yourself. Carry on. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39Yeah...broadband is eliminating JPG.
On what planet is this occurring, because it sure as ***** is not Earth. - pintong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37@estacado: Depending on what you're compressing. A .jpg of a landscape will be smaller than a .png of the same scene. For solid colors/web graphics, however, PNG is great.
- avcore, on 10/12/2007, -37/+71.PNG
- wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Anyone else remember the: Don't post JPGs post GIFs wars?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Bandwidth is almost free? Tell that to all the sites that go down whenever they appear on the front pages of Digg, Slashdot, and the other social bookmarking sites. not of these sites are going down becuase they have one or more pictures that are too big. Very few sites exceed their bandwidth due to just text being loaded, no matter how many visitors it gets at once.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28PNG doesnt compress as well as jpeg for pictures, but it does compress well enough, and lossless is good. Our hard drives and interweb connections are good enough at this point that I think it is time to move on. I would rather wait a couple second longer to download something than to have compression artifacts on one of my wallpapers for example. Sadly, most art on the net is still published in jpg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Yeah, it's always a nice surprise to see the image loading from the _bottom_!
- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -3/+23If it ain't perfect, improve it. If TVs can move into HD quality then why can't imagery?
(or in this case, make a better JPEG standard) - Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Considering we almost got burned by JPEG patent trolls, I think everybody's going to wait a good long while (20+ yrs) to make damn sure that doesn't happen again. Too much legal risk for too little economic return.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18You're the guy who invented PNG?
- jragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18@betona
the "jiff" versus "giff" debate is a perfect example of one approach being technically correct but still losing. The people have spoken, and they think "jiff' sounds stupid. - Visk, on 10/12/2007, -15/+29.BMP is the answer
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The problem with JPEG2000 is that it overly smooths things. It has the same effect as Photoshop's median feature. Instead of digging me down, try it in some images with a lot of small detail like hair. The JPEG2000 will always look worse than the standard JPEG.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18BITMAP FTW!11
*posts 12 MB screenshot of something.* - clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@jo3design
Assuming you have to go back and change every current JPG to JP2, yea that would be huge.
But you don't have to. All you have to do is add support for JP2 to current programs AND leave the JPG support alone and then JPG's and JP2's would display fine. There's no need to go changing everything over to JP2 and abandoning JPG. They are just talking about additional support. Just another image type, like being able to view a webpage with GIF, JPG and BMP's all on the same webpage. You don't just have to choose one and leave the others out. - etnu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+141.) Not everyone in the world has a 3Mb connection; even in well-developed countries like the U.S. less than half of all internet users have connections > 1Mbps.
2.) even if we do, why waste it on something that isn't necessary?
3.) The difference when just comparing 1 image may be negligible, but how about photo websites which display dozens of thumbnails on a single place?
4.) Upstream bandwidth is way more expensive than downstream. A 50% file size reduction would probably save sites like flickr at least a third on their bandwidth bills (for example; jpeg2000 doesn't offer 50% savings, though). - trib4lmaniac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Wow, that is an incredible feature. Creating and caching thumbnails is a real pain from a developers point of view.
Seriously, I love that. - kalleanka, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@pintong
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/lena512color-50.jp2 does load in Firefox for me too, but it's opened by quicktime.
I assume it would not load if I didn't have quicktime installed, and I assume the same applies to you. - Duncan3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Fresh batch of patents, yum yum.
We'll stick to jpg thanks. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF_and_2000_Comparison.png
Having a look at this sample it seems that JPEG2000 looks blurrier at the same file size - estvir, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17HD Photo (?)
- oliwer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10IrfanView has a plugin to open JP2. But it's not free :/
- MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14> "Every now and then I hear someone pronounce it wrong and I still cringe (correct is "jif")"
I never asked anyone how to pronounce it when I first heard of a GIF. I just used context clues.
First, whenever I see a G, I immediately think of a hard G sound.
Then, I thought it might be a J sound. No way, because JIF peanut butter is a J sound, and GIF has a G.
Finally, GIF stands for Graphics Interchange Format... Hard G in graphics!
It ain't Jraphics, folks!
That's how I started saying GIF with a hard G. I know that grammatically it's supposed to be a soft G if the G is used before a vowel. But... GIF isn't really a word... it's an acronym, and more importantly a file extension. Anyways, I can't even remember the last time I even spoke "GIF" out loud. - kontact, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9i can't open this with anything, even infranview.
seems kind of pointless if nothing can open it. - Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So does the GIMP...
- guibom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Video compression technology has gone a long way since 1986. It's strange that no considerably better still picture compression appeared in the mean time.
- clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It is broken. It's not an ideal image format. So yes, it does need to be fixed. Maybe YOU don't have a visual problem with it, but others do.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well, duh.
The reason is that most of the people do not compress them that much. But the whole point is, with the new format, you can have images of the same quality that take less network traffic, which means less hosting money. - dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@itsbecca: "Oh yeah. I forgot. US = World."
While a disturbingly large number of American's seem to believe this, I don't see how it's relevant...
Broadband is in no way kills JPEGs, in fact most camera's default output is JPEG, the only other real option being compressed RAW, which takes quite a bit more space.
PNGs are great, for things like diagrams, cartoons, screenshots, and other things with obvious patterns and large areas of solid colour. JPEGS still produce better results for photos given the same filesize. (PNGs also have the advantage of an alpha channel, one of the JPEGs biggest faults IMHO).
If JP2, or similar (preferably a free/open format, so there are no issues with licensing) is brought into practice, I have no objection, progress is good. - stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Patents patents patents patents.
- tmiller51, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Why didn't they call it .JIF then?
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Bitmaps (BMPs) were not broken, but they would take forever to load at a decent size.
Improving what already works into something that works better is good. :) - rkuchiki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Paint Shop Pro will open/save JPEG2k
- 1point618, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I like that he won't use periods, but he includes the word "period" as an interjection.
- brombie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In case you guys are wondering what kind of patent mess Mozilla and Microsoft will get into if they try to implement jp2, this is direct from the spec's Annex P. Basically they'll have to clear it with 22 patent holders.
---------------------------------------------------------
There is the possibility that, for some of the processes specified in this Recommendation | International Standard,
conformance or compliance may require use of an invention covered by patent rights.
By publication of this Recommendation | International Standard, no position is taken with respect to the validity of this
claim or of any patent rights in connection therewith. Information regarding such patents can be obtained from the any
organizations. The table summarizes the formal patent and intellectual property rights statements that have been received.
Table P-1 Received intellectual property rights statements
Number Company
1 Algo Vision
2 Canon Incorporated
3 Digital Accelerator Corporation
4 Digital Imaging Group (DIG)
5 Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson
6 Hewlett Packard Company
7 International Business Machines, Inc.
8 LizardTech, Incorporated
9 LuraTech
10 MITRE Incorporated
11 Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
12 Motorola Corporation
13 PrimaComp Incorporated
14 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
15 Ricoh Company, Limited
16 SAIC
17 Sarnoff Corporation
18 Sharp Corporation
19 Sony Corporation
20 TeraLogic Incorporated
ISO/IEC FCD15444-2 : 2000 (7 December 2000)
332 ITU-T Rec. T.801 (2000)
21 University of Arizona
21 University of New South Wales
22 Washington State University - Pseudo98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Tradition
http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/Lenna97.html - judgeFire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8On Macs at least, the QuickTime plugin kicks in, recognizes the linked .jp2 file and renders the image just fine. Should work like that on PCs, too. It doesn't render the image when in an IMG tag. Embedding the file as an object might work inline, too.
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Sadly, the format was killed either by patents or at least the widespread belief that it may not be 100% clean. (The JPEG committee even warn about submarine patents). The wavelet compression in JPEG2000 is more suitable for image compression than the DCT in JPEG, meaning in layman's terms, better quality at any given file size. Interestingly enough, it does not support EXIF which means it will never be adopted for digital cameras. It also would have trouble with use with debian guidelines.
If this was actually mainstream back in 2000, this would have been awesome. Many people were still on dialup, memory cards were just coming on to the scene and a 20% increase in photo storage on the card was significant. But this is 2007, we can buy CF cards large enough to store every photo I have ever taken. Today, it is merely a solution without a problem. - khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Of cours JPEG (next to PNG) is superior. GIF handles only how many colors?
It's all in the algorithm. What pisses me off is that a piece of MATH can be patented when it's already natural in form by it's very existence.
SAY NO TO SOFTWARE PATENTS! - ishmal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I really miss Fractal Image Format (fif). It encoded images -beautifully- without any fixed resolution at all.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If you want to go hardcore, let's use pure RAW images without any indication of width and height or color coding. Let the browser find out through some subtle computation.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 