Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Image file formats that didn’t make it

tedium.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 210 posts

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#121

Post by cwt137 »

Isthatablackgsd wrote: post #118
Findecanor wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digital cinema uses a kind of Motion-JPEG2000. The encoding of the coefficients is so convoluted that cinema projector systems require custom hardware to do decoding in 2K at full speed. The only software algorithm that could decode it at relative speed was patented by someone involved with the format: otherwise, software decoding is very slow compared to other formats. JPEG2000 is also sometimes used to encode image…

> JPEG2000 is also sometimes used to encode images embedded in PDFs. Interesting. I thought PDF normally convert the format into .jbig2 for embedding into the PDF itself.

PDF doesn't encode something. PDF supports a few data formats. They call them "filters"; for example CCITT Fax, JBIG2, DCT, RLE, etc. Its up to the PDF creation program to pick the best data format for the image it would like to put into the PDF.

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#122

Post by Isthatablackgsd »

mountainofdeath wrote: post #112
a_e_k wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, digital cinema packages (DCP) used for shipping movies to theaters and showing them on digital projectors are still based on JPEG2000 image sequences.

Is there a reason h264 wasn't used? It has been widely available since at least 2006 and supports all kinds of resolutions, etc.

I believe it is something to do with bit depths. JPEG2000 can support up to 16-bits whereas H264 only can support up to 10-bits. So using H264 8/10-bits could produce noticeable artifacts when it is being used in a big screen. So using JPEG2000 will alleviate the artifacts since it have higher bit depth as it have extra space for more information to fit in.

Here another article [1] I found recently that discussed why Movie theaters use JPEG2000 over popular video format.

[1] https://www.design-reuse.com/articles/4595/digital-cinema-re...

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#123

Post by enriquto »

a_e_k wrote: post #52
enriquto wrote: post #7

Tiff is very much not dead. It is likely one of the image formats more widely used today. Terabytes of new tiff images are prodced every hour and distributed by many remote sensing operators. It is a really flexible and robust format also. How else are you going to store a floating-point multispectral image of 8 bands and 50.000 x 50.000 pixels, arranged tile-wise for easy cropping?

The OpenEXR format, from the film industry, can also store an image with that configuration.

In this day and age I'd rather use the .npy file format used to save numpy arrays. It's trivial to read and write from C (and any other language) without any dependencies. The openexr api always seemed a bit cumbersome to me.

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#124

Post by jfrunyon »

klodolph wrote: post #63
Macha wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TGA files still show up in video game textures surprisingly often

That's probably because of how simple the format can be, with basically a header and footer tacked on to some RGBA data. Surprisingly, with PNG, the deflate compression can slow you down, depending on what you are doing with the data. Saving a little bit of IO when you're accessing local data can turn out to be a losing proposition. TGA makes it easier to just shove pixels around, from program to program. TGA has all…

I believe PNG supports uncompressed files, usually with a compression level = 0.

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#125

Post by h2odragon »

MilStdJunkie wrote: post #90

CGM YEEEEEHAW Ha ha ha I work in an image format so forgotten it doesn't even make the forgotten list. Computer Graphics Metafile bitches! My god how I loathe that thing. It's kept alive in specifications purely by the efforts of a single software company flooding all the WGs with cheerleaders. "No, it's not obsolete, SVG is just a thing used by hackers and programmers"

this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Graphics_Metafile

you poor, lost soul. tell us where it hurt you.

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#127

Post by Isthatablackgsd »

sprash wrote: post #49
avmich wrote: post #37

I'd like to see a mention of FIF, fractal format from Iterative Systems, something quite different from other approaches to store images.

This format was very interesting because it was essentially "resolution independent". You could zoom in further and further and see nonsensical made up details by the fractal algorithms without getting any blurriness or interpolation artifacts.

> This format was very interesting because it was essentially "resolution independent"

When I read that, I thought it is because it is a vector type. Usually "resolution independent" images, from my understanding, are commonly vector type since it can scale infinitely like SVG. However, I couldn't find information online whatever .FIF is a raster or vector type. I saw one that said it shares similarly to vector images, that didn't confirm anything for me. So I would incline that because .FIF is a vector type, please correct me if I am wrong. It so hard to find this information and wondering if my google-fu is getting rusty.

EDIT: Whelps, it turn out my google-fu is getting rusty. I managed to find the information and I am wrong. It is a raster type[1].

[1] http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Fractal_Image_Format

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#128

Post by jandrese »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #126

Does anyone know of a method for extracting images from the FlashPix (.fpx) format. I think user-friendly support for the format was lost when Kodak went bankrupt. However is the format itself overly-complicated.

ImageMagick may have support:

https://github.com/ImageMagick/libfpx

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#129

Post by jandrese »

acdha wrote: post #29
ahartmetz wrote: post #16

JPEG2000 is a big one that seems to be missing. It is used in medical imaging or something, because laws? But its visual quality is worse than old JPEG, despite a PSNR advantage. Apparently, compression researchers used to think that people care about PSNR.

JPEG-2000 was held back by intellectual property restrictions: patents but also the fact that the spec cost $1,500. A lot of the parties involved appeared to think that the technical merits made adoption inevitable and so they didn't spend time making it appealing with things like a test suite or high-quality open source implementation. That had several impacts which scarred a lot of people I've worked with: 1. The c…

The patent situation was exacerbated by the fact that JPEG2000 started getting pushed right about the time the GIF patent situation blew up so everybody was reluctant have a repeat disaster.

Add in the fact that JPEG2000 showed at best a marginal improvement over JPEG and it's not hard to just stick with the proven technology. Having no good reference implementation is just a nail in the coffin.

Re: Image file formats that didn’t make it

#130

Post by SavantIdiot »

ahartmetz wrote: post #16

JPEG2000 is a big one that seems to be missing. It is used in medical imaging or something, because laws? But its visual quality is worse than old JPEG, despite a PSNR advantage. Apparently, compression researchers used to think that people care about PSNR.

Isn't DiCOM a popular image format for medical imaging too? Or does DiCOM use Jpeg2000 under the hood?
Post reply on HN