Editing Talk:2254: JPEG2000
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Would a brief description of the .png format (more typically used for comic images) be appropriate? {{unsigned|162.158.78.70}} | Would a brief description of the .png format (more typically used for comic images) be appropriate? {{unsigned|162.158.78.70}} | ||
− | I was pretty sure that patents were the main problem with adoption, at least in time when .gif patents were | + | I was pretty sure that patents were the main problem with adoption, at least in time when .gif patents were problem. However, seems the patent status is getting better and it isn't helping ... meanwhile, WEBP, which is using similar technology, is gaining traction. |
− | ... which would also answer | + | ... which would also answer question of previous commenter: while brief mention of PNG might be worth it, mention of WEBP and similar alternatives would be more important -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC) |
− | |||
− | |||
It's also used for [http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Image_System textures in Second Life]. In fact, that page also states that decompressing JPEG2000 is much more processor-intensive than other image compression methods, so I guess that might be another reason for the lack of general adoption? [[User:EddyM|EddyM]] ([[User talk:EddyM|talk]]) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC) | It's also used for [http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Image_System textures in Second Life]. In fact, that page also states that decompressing JPEG2000 is much more processor-intensive than other image compression methods, so I guess that might be another reason for the lack of general adoption? [[User:EddyM|EddyM]] ([[User talk:EddyM|talk]]) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC) | ||
Line 36: | Line 34: | ||
I was browsing a series of 70+ page PDFs that was a very high quality image scan, and the PDF browser would regularly grind to a halt for a second or two when trying to move forward a few pages. I eventually discovered that the images were embedded in JPEG2000. They were definitely small file sizes and definitely high quality, but it was just too much. I decoded the entire 500+ pages and re-encoded them as jpeg. Bigger file size, lower resolution, but scrolling was smooth as butter again. | I was browsing a series of 70+ page PDFs that was a very high quality image scan, and the PDF browser would regularly grind to a halt for a second or two when trying to move forward a few pages. I eventually discovered that the images were embedded in JPEG2000. They were definitely small file sizes and definitely high quality, but it was just too much. I decoded the entire 500+ pages and re-encoded them as jpeg. Bigger file size, lower resolution, but scrolling was smooth as butter again. | ||
− | Randall is correct to not really care about the standard's failure, per se, except insofar as he feels sorry for it. The difference between the technical impressiveness of these improvements and their unimportance to reality reminds me of the VHS vs [[Wikipedia:Betamax|Beta]] issue. Yes, Beta had the ability to reproduce sound and video of a higher fidelity, but only in a trivial sense indistinguishable to most people under normal conditions, whereas VHS was better at things that were indeed important, like being able to record a full two hour movie when Beta could handle less than one hour. The same thing happened with [[Wikipedia:OS/2|OS/2]] vs Windows...OS/2 was purely object-oriented, a technical distinction that was completely irrelevant to real life, but required four times as much RAM as the typical brand-new computer came with, so it failed | + | Randall is correct to not really care about the standard's failure, per se, except insofar as he feels sorry for it. The difference between the technical impressiveness of these improvements and their unimportance to reality reminds me of the VHS vs [[Wikipedia:Betamax|Beta]] issue. Yes, Beta had the ability to reproduce sound and video of a higher fidelity, but only in a trivial sense indistinguishable to most people under normal conditions, whereas VHS was better at things that were indeed important, like being able to record a full two hour movie when Beta could handle less than one hour. The same thing happened with [[Wikipedia:OS/2|OS/2]] vs Windows...OS/2 was purely object-oriented, a technical distinction that was completely irrelevant to real life, but required four times as much RAM as the typical brand-new computer came with, so it failed. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |