21–30 of 87 posts
Do whatever.
The only thing that matters is publishing it in the first place and backing up on hardware that's not at preservation risk.
This is great example of fake science (Is it just "science" now?) keep the underclass constantly anxious about things that don't exist so they keep paying academics wages to do nothing but supply fear and disruption.
I decided to use JPEG 2000 to save disk space on my photo archive a decade ago... huge mistake. [edit] I thought I had the originals backed up on CD, it turns out I didn't. DigiKam and many other programs don't support them natively. At some point I'm going to have to write a script and convert them all to normal jpegs.
find -type f -name '*.jp2' | parallel --xargs --max-args=1 convert {} {.}.jpgEarlier quoted context omitted.
Fun fact, whenever you go to the movies, films (that are projected digitally) are encoding in JPEG2000 (wrapped in a MXF in XYZ Colourspace). We also use it for our 3D renders for archviz, and is supported in our editing applications aswell... lower filesize compared to PNG, and better quality compared to JPG, and also supports alphas.
In other words, motion JPEG2000, and it's decoded by (no doubt extremely expensive) hardware. There's no way a general-purpose CPU can decode in realtime otherwise.
So, presumably they could have swapped to commodity hardware a while ago.
Looks like the answer was 'yes', in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When was the last time you used a JPEG 2000? https://caniuse.com/jpeg2000 puts browser adoption today at 18% (!).
Fun fact, whenever you go to the movies, films (that are projected digitally) are encoding in JPEG2000 (wrapped in a MXF in XYZ Colourspace). We also use it for our 3D renders for archviz, and is supported in our editing applications aswell... lower filesize compared to PNG, and better quality compared to JPG, and also supports alphas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they really use straight up XYZ? Where can I read more about this format?
I think people mis-estimate file sizes these days - two hours of completely uncompressed 4K video is under 5 TB. Fits on a basic consumer external hard drive no problem. Send it by mail. https://toolstud.io/video/filesize.php?width=3840&height=216...
> OpenJPEG C 49,892 > libjasper C 26,458 > PIL C 12,493, Python: 9,229 But does PIL actually implement any of those image formats, or is it simply wrapping other libraries in the python/c api?
Looks like the answer was 'yes', in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When was the last time you used a JPEG 2000? https://caniuse.com/jpeg2000 puts browser adoption today at 18% (!).
There seems to be a functional and open reference implementation for JPEG 2000. https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg
I think a distinction needs to be made between “risk” and “potential inconvenience”. Given that there are free, open source implementations of the JPEG 2000 decoder, There is no plausible preservation risk. Even if, in 150 years, the contemporary version of ImageMagick has dropped support for JPEG 2000, it would be relatively trivial to spin up an ancient virtual machine and run a 100-year-old version of Linux. Or, y…
I decided to use JPEG 2000 to save disk space on my photo archive a decade ago... huge mistake. [edit] I thought I had the originals backed up on CD, it turns out I didn't. DigiKam and many other programs don't support them natively. At some point I'm going to have to write a script and convert them all to normal jpegs.
Why was it a huge mistake? There are decent libraries that support it. Did it just not work with your cloud setup or OS libraries?