Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
blogs.loc.gov
Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#2Looks 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% (!).
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#3Looks 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
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#4Looks 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.
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#5Looks 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% (!).
Are they not common in pdf documents, for example those distributed by The Internet Archive? I suspect this is why so many of them render so slowly, even on fast systems.
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#6Looks 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.
Do they really use straight up XYZ? Where can I read more about this format?
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#7> 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?
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#8I 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.
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#9I 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?
Re: Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
#10Earlier 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.
Do they really use straight up XYZ? Where can I read more about this format?
Appears to be this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package