Comments on: JPEG 2000 – Do you use it?

By: Lars

Lars — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:58:52 +0000

I think JPEG2000′s features are unique and should not vanish from the market. How do you want to keep huge images? On the basis of RAW files? The only real issue about the standard is that it was not really adopted by the software vendors and some of them didn’t do it efficiently so that the entire range of possibilities was available. Maybe PhotoShop could make a good point here?

By: C. S.

C. S. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:11:13 +0000

J2K is just starting to start through. Digital Cinema uses it and archives start to adopt it. I think J2K will get more and more important in the future, so it would be a mistake to stop supporting it.

By: Tomasz

Tomasz — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:35:32 +0000

I’m using jpeg2000 format and personally as a developer i think it should be support by Adobe because of many advantages and applications – not appreciated by ‘regular’ users (losslessly storage, very good quality..etc.)
[It's not going away. --J.]

By: napi

napi — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:10:34 +0000

I use it John. Mapping industry is expanding, they all use jp2/ecw format John. They sure like to be able to edit those map picture in adobe. Image file are becoming larger and larger everyday John. I would say you keep the jp2 in adobe.

By: matt pearson

matt pearson — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:11:02 +0000

Our treatment studio generates an average of 25Gb of TIFFs each month. Storage costs and active maintenance fees for our server are prohibatively expensive. Using a good codec for generating lossless JP2s (Aware, Luratech, Kakadu) would allow us to mitigate the issue.
We are using Lightroom for image processing and very basic DAM. Support for JPEG 2000 is highly desirable for our conservation center and for Lightroom-using institutions within the digital preservation community (conservation centers, small collection holding institutions, digitization centers, etc).
Several major archives have already made the switch from lossless TIFF and DNG to JP2.
Matt Pearson
NEDCC

By: theWoosh

theWoosh — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:28:48 +0000

I would love to use JPPeg2000 format because of it’s support for high bit-depths – I have an archiving project of 60,000 negatives under way – I cannot store TIFF files, though obviously this would be ideal (at 64 megs per scan – and that’s just B&W!), as this would take nearly 4 terabytes of storage (not to mention problems with back-up) and I don’t have this available. But I can store them as JPeg2000 – at around 7 megs each (with a little lossy compression), and indistinguishable to my eye from the original.
Please, please support JPeg2000 – it is a great format for when you just have to compromise, and if it were better supported, I, and many others could then use it in the assurance of it’s longevity…
Otherwise I guess I’ll just have to wait for MS HD Photo to become JPEG XR or whatever..

By: Morten Brakestad

Morten Brakestad — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:11:49 +0000

JPEG-LS support sounds like a good idea. Sounds like it could be an even better archival format than JPEG-2000. Maybe it is easier to implement too, as it is already used in the DNG format (according to Wikipedia)

By: shae

shae — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:21:09 +0000

Late comment, but maybe still relevant.
Removing JP2K or not installing it by default doesn’t strike me as a good idea. The plugin already exists and provides some useful features — for me it’s the lossless mode. It’s much faster than PNG and compresses better in most cases.
On the other hand, I find JP2K useless for lossy compression. In my tests it compresses about the same as JPEG or worse. JPEG’s added noise (at higher quality settings) usually looks like detail, while JP2K’s smoothening just blurs.
While at it, it would also be nice to have native JPEG-LS support. It’s the ideal lossless format: even faster than JP2K, and on average compresses slightly better. The only problem is that it’s far from mainstream.

By: Eppe Tot

Eppe Tot — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:26:28 +0000

Any news from the ‘QE folks’ on my bugreport (see august 11, 2007)?

By: Fleet Command

Fleet Command — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:56:34 +0000

I use JPEG2000 (even more in the past) and I had to buy an additional plug-in to use it.
Contrary to your statement, John, Photoshop never came with JPEG2000 Plug-in installed by default or even installable via main installer. (I double-checked right now.) It has always been in the Goodies folder and it and rife with bugs.
If Photoshop had better JPEG2000 support, people would have flocked to it.
Currently, I am vastly using JPEG XR, Microsoft’s purposed standard.

By: Jan Mark Koopmans

Jan Mark Koopmans — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:52:19 +0000

In March 2008 the national library of the Netherlands (de Koninklijke Bibliotheek) published an extensive report on the use of alternative file formats for storing master-images of digitisation projects. A large group of international specialists contributed to this report. Four file/compression formats are reviewed: 1) JPEG 2000 part 1 (lossless and lossy) 2) PNG 1.2 3) basic JFIF 1.02 (JPEG) 4) TIFF LZW The conclusion of the report is that JPEG 2000 part - lossles is the most suitable file format, viewed from the perspective of long-term sustainability and the File Format Assessment Method. The complete report (in English) can be found at: http://www.kb.nl/hrd/dd/dd_links_en_publicaties/publicaties/Alternative%20File%20Formats%20for%20Storing%20Masters%202%201.pdf

By: zehawk

zehawk — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:58:19 +0000

Perhaps you should give heed to archival requirements too. I’ve been trying to settle on a format to use when archiving my photos. The options: DNG, TIFF/PSD, PNG, WDP/HDP and JPF. My requirements are: 16-bit images, losslessly compressed, embedded ICC profile, preserve ALL metadata, smallest storage size, windows thumbnails, lightroom support.
DNG is out. I want a cooked file for storage, after its been through PS, and DNG is the input, not the output.
TIFF, PSD (LZW/ZIP) what ever takes your fancy: A 35 MB uncompressed file = 39 MB LZW = 30 MB ZIP. ZIP size sounds acceptable, but no windows explorer thumbnail, and no known hack to get win XP to show them. Crap. Everybody’s current favorite for archival.
PNG: Its well known as an archival format. Above file drops to 24 MB. Has a fatal flaw: metadata is not stored. Lightroom does not support. Double Crap. (Thou superpng claims to support metadata.)
JPF: File size dropped to 18 MB. Woohoo! No support from lightroom. No windows explorer thumbnail, and no known hack to get win XP to show them. The PS plugin sucks big time… its ridiculously slow. Triple crap.
WDP/HDP: The new kid on the block. File size dropped to 19 MB. No support from lightroom. No windows explorer thumbnail, and no known hack to get win XP to show them. Double crap.
Bottomline: JPF’s been around a while and didnt get anywhere. HDP has got MS muscle behind, so maybe its time to change your focus to HDP. Maybe thats slated to be the next archival format.

By: James

James — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:13:14 +0000

I love JPEG 2000!
I compress my 100Mb scans down to 10Mb for easier archiving and retrieval. Nothing comes close to Jpeg 2000 for doing this, the compressed image is largely identical to the original.

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:14 +0000

Please support the ability to save LOSSLESS images!! The need for compression without loss of quality is great.
For example scanning/digitalising film or slide negatives viewable and or printable to 17″ x 14″ or larger sizes.
Support, development and compatibility for jpeg2000 is still necessary as what other alternatives are there without needing enormous amounts of harddrive space for treasured memories, records or many other purposes in the business or personal spaces.
Love the developments in photoshop in general with other design apps esp with camera raw abilities in-terms of photography. Thanks

By: Andrey

Andrey — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:50:29 +0000

The ability to save LOSLESS from a 55Mb 16bit TIF in a 22Mb JPEG2000 with XMP support is a great feature, whithout any alternative.
PS
Could your send me the current version of jpeg2000.8bi for PS CS3?