41–50 of 87 posts
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Well, two hard drives in RAID-0 if you want to play it back in real-time without copying it first to faster storage, because a single SATA drive cannot sustain 597.2MB/sec. Unless your definition of "basic consumer external hard drive" is an NVMe SSD over 10Gbps USB 3.2 or better.
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.
ImageMagick and GNU parallel happily max-out all cores on my machine and convert a few hundred images per second: find -type f -name '*.jp2' | parallel --xargs --max-args=1 convert {} {.}.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
How common is 4K at 24fps though? I'd expect 4K to usually use higher framerates than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ImageMagick and GNU parallel happily max-out all cores on my machine and convert a few hundred images per second: find -type f -name '*.jp2' | parallel --xargs --max-args=1 convert {} {.}.jpg
Would be yet another lossy transcode, though.
I think some editors now save the original and just store the modification steps (Lightroom does this for raw at least.)
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…
Software rots man. It can be really hard to run some open source software from the 80s and 90s. This is actually one of the big arguments for Open Source: Access to the software is way less interesting than the support/community/ecosystem around it; there's no reason not to open source your software and not doing it actually harms the users.
But for me, the problem is just how unwieldy the files are. Nothing seems to work with them well, except ImageMagick, to convert the files to some more-usable format.
I do a lot of Blender renders, and for a while I thought I'd use 12-bit JPEG2000 so that I could capture more details in the shadows for subsequent photo editing.
Big mistake. I ended up having to write a series of very complicated scripts to convert all to regular JPEG for 99% of whatever I'm doing with the images. GIMP doesn't work well with them. My own image viewer, based on Kivy, doesn't work at all with them. MacOS generates thumbnails on them at maybe 1/10th the speed of comparable JPEGs.
In the end I just decided if I really want to work with the darks in an image I will go find the original .blend and re-render the scene. Now I render straight to regular JPEG and I save massive amounts of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software rots man. It can be really hard to run some open source software from the 80s and 90s. This is actually one of the big arguments for Open Source: Access to the software is way less interesting than the support/community/ecosystem around it; there's no reason not to open source your software and not doing it actually harms the users.
Yeah, Pixar literally had to spin up VMs of their old software stack when they had to remaster the Toy Story films because it was less work than getting it running again on their current stack
> 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?
The first count “PIL C” is for the C implementation of PIL including library code.