Photoshop – why no JPEG 2000?

BT
Posted By
Bill Tuthill
Feb 1, 2007
Views
1677
Replies
30
Status
Closed
Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

R
ray
Feb 1, 2007
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
N
neon
Feb 1, 2007
ray wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
PS CS2 does support jpeg2k.
SM
Skip Middleton
Feb 1, 2007
"ray" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
There’s the possibility that it didn’t take of _because of_ the lack of support in Photoshop.


Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
ER
Ed Ruf
Feb 1, 2007
On 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

It’s in PSE3, so I don’t think either of your speculations are the case.

Ed Ruf ()
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
R
ray
Feb 1, 2007
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:07:37 -0800, Skip wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
There’s the possibility that it didn’t take of _because of_ the lack of support in Photoshop.

Chicken or egg?
R
Roberto
Feb 1, 2007
Check the Photoshop CD. It maybe one of the several formats that isn’t installed by default, but they include it on the CD for those that need and want to install it. I think its in the extras or freebies directory or something like that.

ljc

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.
SM
Skip Middleton
Feb 1, 2007
wrote in message
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:07:37 -0800, Skip wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
There’s the possibility that it didn’t take of _because of_ the lack of support in Photoshop.

Chicken or egg?
Chicken…
πŸ˜‰


Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
"ray"
KL
Ken Lucke
Feb 1, 2007
In article <Dbswh.10439$>, Skip
wrote:

wrote in message
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:07:37 -0800, Skip wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
There’s the possibility that it didn’t take of _because of_ the lack of support in Photoshop.

Chicken or egg?
Chicken…
πŸ˜‰

Yup – ever see an egg lay a chicken?


You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
— Charles A. Beard
DD
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 1, 2007
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article <Dbswh.10439$>, Skip
wrote:

wrote in message
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:07:37 -0800, Skip wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.
I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
There’s the possibility that it didn’t take of _because of_ the lack of support in Photoshop.
Chicken or egg?
Chicken…
πŸ˜‰

Yup – ever see an egg lay a chicken?

Fish, amphibians, and reptiles were laying eggs a LONG time before there were any chickens.
KL
Ken Lucke
Feb 1, 2007
In article <45c25934$0$15003$>, David
Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article <Dbswh.10439$>, Skip
wrote:

wrote in message
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:07:37 -0800, Skip wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.
I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too much bother to implement.
There’s the possibility that it didn’t take of _because of_ the lack of support in Photoshop.
Chicken or egg?
Chicken…
πŸ˜‰

Yup – ever see an egg lay a chicken?

Fish, amphibians, and reptiles were laying eggs a LONG time before there were any chickens.

True.

The "chicken & the egg" dilemma, however, normally ass/u/mes "[hen] chicken & [chicken] egg" as the standard set of comparators, in the absense of contrary descriptors.

:^)

(The [hen] above is to forestall the "it could be a rooster, and they don’t lay eggs" nitpick which might otherwise be forthcoming <g>)


You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
— Charles A. Beard
EU
egruf_usenet2
Feb 1, 2007
On 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

In a sense RTFM, from the CS2 help files:

To save a file in JPEG 2000 format (optional Photoshop plug-in) To save files in the JPEG 2000 format, you must get the optional JPEG 2000 plug-in and install it in this location: Adobe Photoshop CS2/Plug-Ins/Adobe Photoshop Only/File Formats. This plug-in is available on the Photoshop CS2 installation CD in Goodies/Optional Plug-Ins/Photoshop Only/File Formats. Extended JPEG 2000 (JPF) format provides an expanded set of options compared to the standard JPEG 2000 (JP2) format. However, you can make files JP2 compatible by selecting the appropriate option in the JPEG 2000 dialog box.
Note: You canΒ’t save Duotone, Multichannel, or Bitmap mode images in JPEG 2000 format. To save these files in JPEG 2000 format, first convert them to RGB Color mode.
Choose File > Save As, and choose JPEG 2000 from the Format menu. Specify a file name and location, select saving options, and click Save. The JPEG 2000 dialog box opens.
Note: If you want to save a JP2-compatible file, you must select the ICC Profile option (Windows) or the Embed Color Profile option (Mac OS) in the Save As dialog box. Otherwise, the JP2 Compatible option will be unavailable in the JPEG 2000 dialog box. The JP2-compatible option slightly increases the JPF file size. Keep in mind that JP2 viewers are not required to support ICC profiles and metadata present in JPF files, so color fidelity and other features may not work as expected.
(Optional) Enter a value in the File Size text box to set a target size for the saved file. The value in the Quality text box changes to reflect the best quality for the file size you enter.
Select any of the following options:
Lossless Compresses the image without losing image quality. Selecting this option creates a larger file. Deselect Lossless to create a smaller file. Then drag the Quality pop-up slider or enter a value in the Quality text box to specify the image quality. A higher value results in better image quality and a larger file size.
If you specify an image quality that conflicts with a target file size you entered previously, Photoshop automatically changes the value in the File Size text box.
Fast Mode Allows faster previewing or encoding of the image. Fast Mode does not support file-size control, progressive optimization, or lossy encoding with an integer wavelet filter.
Include Metadata Includes file information. If your image file contains paths and you wish to store the paths information in the JPEG 2000 file, you must select the Metadata option.
Include Color Settings Includes the color profile embedded in an image. Deselect the Include Metadata and Include Color Settings options to decrease the size of the image file.
Include Transparency Preserves transparency in the original image. The Include Transparency option is dimmed if the image does not contain transparency.
JP2 Compatible Creates a file that can be displayed in viewing software that supports standard JPEG 2000 (JP2) format but does not support extended JPEG 2000 (JPF) format.
Click the Advanced Options button to set the following options: Compliance Specifies the devices with which the file is compliant. Currently, only general devices (such as web browsers) are supported. Wavelet Filter Specifies the type of numbers (coefficients) used to encode the file. Float is more accurate but cannot be used for Lossless compression. Selecting the Lossless compression option automatically sets the Wavelet Filter option to Integer.
Choose Float or Integer depending on your image and the result you want. Integer is usually the best option for an overall consistent appearance in the image. Float may sharpen the image but could cause it to lose some quality around the edges.
Tile Size Specifies the size of the tiles used in the image. When you use low quality values to optimize images smaller than 1024 x 1024 pixels, using the largest tile size produces better results.
A tile size of 1024 is best for most images. When creating files with small dimensions (for cell phones, and so forth), use a smaller tile size. Metadata Format Specifies the metadata formats to include in the image file. JPEG2000 XML is JPEG 2000-specific XML data; this option is available only if the image file contains this data. XMP is File Info data and EXIF is digital camera data.
Color Settings Format Specifies the Color Settings Format to include in the image file. ICC Profile, the default option, includes the full ICC profile specified in the Save As dialog box. The Restricted ICC Profile option is intended for use in portable devices such as cell phones and PDAs. A Restricted ICC Profile must be in a JP2 file.
Choose an optimization order from the Order menu:
Growing Thumbnail Presents a sequence of small thumbnail images increasing in size until they reach the imageΒ’s full size.
Progressive Presents increasingly detailed versions of the entire image as data becomes available (for example, streaming over the web to a browser). Progressive JPEG images have a slightly larger file size, require more RAM for viewing, and are not supported by all applications and JPEG 2000 viewing software.
Color Makes the image appear first as a grayscale image, then as a color image.
Region Of Interest Lets you choose an alpha channel to define a region of interest if your Photoshop document contains one or more alpha channels. After the alpha channel is loaded as a region of interest, choose an Enhance value to increase or decrease the quality of the region of interest relative to the rest of the image. Note that Enhance does not change the file size of the image, so enhancing the area inside the alpha channel decreases the quality of the area outside the alpha channel (and vice versa).
The Region Of Interest and Enhance options are not available if your Photoshop document does not have an alpha channel.
Note: The channel (alpha, spot, or Quick Mask) used to define the region of interest is discarded in the final saved JPEG 2000 file. To preview how the image will appear in JPEG 2000 viewing software, make sure you chose an optimization order in step 6. The Preview option takes into consideration how the image is optimized and opens the image accordingly. In the Download Preview area of the JPEG 200 dialog box, choose a download rate from the pop-up menu to view the estimated download time of the image, then click the Preview button.
You can use the Set Preview Zoom pop-up menu to zoom in or out of the image for better viewing. You can also use the Zoom tool and the Hand tool to adjust the viewing area of your preview.
Click OK to generate the JPEG 2000 image file.
See also
JPEG format

Ed Ruf ()
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
JM
John McWilliams
Feb 1, 2007
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article <45c25934$0$15003$>, David
Dyer-Bennet wrote:

πŸ˜‰
Yup – ever see an egg lay a chicken?
Fish, amphibians, and reptiles were laying eggs a LONG time before there were any chickens.

True.

The "chicken & the egg" dilemma, however, normally ass/u/mes "[hen] chicken & [chicken] egg" as the standard set of comparators, in the absense of contrary descriptors.

:^)

(The [hen] above is to forestall the "it could be a rooster, and they don’t lay eggs" nitpick which might otherwise be forthcoming <g>)

<AOL> OMG- WTF are you talkin about?????????????

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

</AOL>

IAE, it’s over my head.


john mcwilliams
SM
Skip Middleton
Feb 2, 2007
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article <Dbswh.10439$>, Skip
wrote:

wrote in message
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:07:37 -0800, Skip wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:31 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.
I’ll speculate: jpeg2k never took off for various reasons and it was too
much bother to implement.
There’s the possibility that it didn’t take of _because of_ the lack of
support in Photoshop.
Chicken or egg?
Chicken…
πŸ˜‰

Yup – ever see an egg lay a chicken?

Fish, amphibians, and reptiles were laying eggs a LONG time before there were any chickens.
But I never saw an egg lay any of them, either! πŸ˜‰


Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
N
noone
Feb 4, 2007
In article , says…
Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

Hm-m, a copy of PS, that I have/had, did allow for J2K. Maybe that was back with ver 7, or CS-1. I’ll check CS-2 and see if it’s gone.

As far as the format goes, it has langished in obscurity for seven years now, so I guess that it IS a dead-end.

IIRC, ThumbsPlus does offer support for it, or atleast DID. Maybe I need to pay more attention to what is still in my programs and not assume that if it was once there, it’ll still be around a few versions later.

Hunt
N
noone
Feb 4, 2007
In article <45c23260$0$80126$
says…
Check the Photoshop CD. It maybe one of the several formats that isn’t installed by default, but they include it on the CD for those that need and want to install it. I think its in the extras or freebies directory or something like that.

ljc

Could well be. My laptop’s CS-2 doesn’t list it as a possibility, but maybe I didn’t install the "goodies." Back a ver, or two, it appeared. I’ll check the install disks, just to see if it’s in Formats.

Hunt
JM
John McWilliams
Feb 4, 2007
Hunt wrote:
In article , says…
Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

Hm-m, a copy of PS, that I have/had, did allow for J2K. Maybe that was back with ver 7, or CS-1. I’ll check CS-2 and see if it’s gone.
As far as the format goes, it has langished in obscurity for seven years now, so I guess that it IS a dead-end.

IIRC, ThumbsPlus does offer support for it, or atleast DID. Maybe I need to pay more attention to what is still in my programs and not assume that if it was once there, it’ll still be around a few versions later.

Anyone have an idea why anyone’d particularly care about JPEG2000, other than reiterating its features?


John McWilliams
J
JJ
Feb 4, 2007
Hunt wrote:
In article , says…
Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?
Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder that few Photoshop customers want?

Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
although I have no idea what encoder it uses.

Hm-m, a copy of PS, that I have/had, did allow for J2K. Maybe that was back with ver 7, or CS-1. I’ll check CS-2 and see if it’s gone.

It was a plug-in under the formats directory.
BT
Bill Tuthill
Feb 5, 2007
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
Anyone have an idea why anyone’d particularly care about JPEG2000, other than reiterating its features?

To summarize: 1. Archiving, top recommendation here:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_pre ferences.shtml

2. A superior format for digicams:
If digital cameras produced lossless JPEG 2000 (.JP2 or .J2K), we wouldn’t have to worry about all this RAW conversion baloney. Files would be small like old-style JPEG, lossless like TIFF, and in an instantly editable (nonproprietary) format, unlike RAW. JPEG 2000 is what the digital camera industry really needs. Either they just don’t know it yet, or they haven’t managed to build processors fast enough to encode it.
N
nomail
Feb 5, 2007
Bill Tuthill wrote:

In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
Anyone have an idea why anyone’d particularly care about JPEG2000, other than reiterating its features?

To summarize: 1. Archiving, top recommendation here:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_pre ferences.shtml
2. A superior format for digicams:
If digital cameras produced lossless JPEG 2000 (.JP2 or .J2K), we wouldn’t have to worry about all this RAW conversion baloney.

Nonsense. The reason for shooting in RAW has little or nothing to do with the compression of JPEG. Even if a camera could shoot in JPEG2000, I would still recommend to use RAW.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
Author of "RAW", the first Dutch book about the RAW format
JM
John McWilliams
Feb 5, 2007
Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
Anyone have an idea why anyone’d particularly care about JPEG2000, other than reiterating its features?

To summarize: 1. Archiving, top recommendation here:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_pre ferences.shtml
2. A superior format for digicams:
If digital cameras produced lossless JPEG 2000 (.JP2 or .J2K), we wouldn’t have to worry about all this RAW conversion baloney. Files would be small like old-style JPEG, lossless like TIFF, and in an instantly editable (nonproprietary) format, unlike RAW. JPEG 2000 is what the digital camera industry really needs. Either they just don’t know it yet, or they haven’t managed to build processors fast enough to encode it.

In other words, just words.

Why is it dead in the water, then?


John McWilliams
BT
Bill Tuthill
Feb 6, 2007
In rec.photo.digital Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
Nonsense. The reason for shooting in RAW has little or nothing to do with the compression of JPEG. Even if a camera could shoot in JPEG2000, I would still recommend to use RAW.

Maybe for photographers like you, who like to waste, umm… spend your time doing RAW conversion and enhancing images.

For snapshooters like me, I just want good out-of-camera results that I can edit if I wish, but not be forced to do so.

Also, I don’t want to wait 3-6 seconds between shots.

(Removing CGAP from follow-up; I don’t read that group.)
N
noone
Feb 6, 2007
In article ,
says…
Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
Anyone have an idea why anyone’d particularly care about JPEG2000, other than reiterating its features?

To summarize: 1. Archiving, top recommendation here:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_pre ferences.shtml
2. A superior format for digicams:
If digital cameras produced lossless JPEG 2000 (.JP2 or .J2K), we wouldn’t have to worry about all this RAW conversion baloney. Files would be small like old-style JPEG, lossless like TIFF, and in an instantly editable (nonproprietary) format, unlike RAW. JPEG 2000 is what the digital camera industry really needs. Either they just don’t know it yet, or they haven’t managed to build processors fast enough to encode it.

In other words, just words.

Why is it dead in the water, then?


John McWilliams

Because no one "embraced" it. For technology to catch on, someone has to want it. The consumer didn’t – maybe because he/she didn’t know of it, didn’t understand it, or didn’t fell the need for it. The post-production folk didn’t adopt it. The SW folk did offer support for it, but did not "market" that support. Sometimes good ideas just fall by the wayside, i.e. Beta v VHS. It happens all of the time.

Glad that Ed Ruf offered the location to the plug-in, as I had forgotten how it got onto my system in the old days. I just knew that I had it in earlier vers. of PS. I did go and install it in my new CS2 suite, just to have it around, though I have not had an occasion to use it in some years now.

Hunt
JM
John McWilliams
Feb 6, 2007
Hunt wrote:
In article ,
says…
Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
Anyone have an idea why anyone’d particularly care about JPEG2000, other than reiterating its features?
To summarize: 1. Archiving, top recommendation here:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_pre ferences.shtml
2. A superior format for digicams:
If digital cameras produced lossless JPEG 2000 (.JP2 or .J2K), we wouldn’t have to worry about all this RAW conversion baloney. Files would be small like old-style JPEG, lossless like TIFF, and in an instantly editable (nonproprietary) format, unlike RAW. JPEG 2000 is what the digital camera industry really needs. Either they just don’t know it yet, or they haven’t managed to build processors fast enough to encode it.
In other words, just words.

Why is it dead in the water, then?


John McWilliams

Because no one "embraced" it. For technology to catch on, someone has to want it. The consumer didn’t – maybe because he/she didn’t know of it, didn’t understand it, or didn’t fell the need for it. The post-production folk didn’t adopt it. The SW folk did offer support for it, but did not "market" that support. Sometimes good ideas just fall by the wayside, i.e. Beta v VHS. It happens all of the time.

Glad that Ed Ruf offered the location to the plug-in, as I had forgotten how it got onto my system in the old days. I just knew that I had it in earlier vers. of PS. I did go and install it in my new CS2 suite, just to have it around, though I have not had an occasion to use it in some years now.

Nice explanation. My question was slightly rhetorical, hoping those wanting to promote that format would reflect a bit.


john mcwilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
A
ahall
Feb 6, 2007
Bill Tuthill writes:

Bill> Does Photoshop CS2 not support JPEG 2000
Bill> because Adobe thinks JPEG 2000 is a dead-end?

They do support it, just not by default.

From CS2 help:

JPEG 2000 is a file format that provides more options and greater flexibility than the standard JPEG (JPG) format. Using JPEG 2000, you can produce images with better compression and quality for both web and print publishing. To save files in the JPEG 2000 format, you must locate the optional JPEG 2000 plug-in and install it in this location: Adobe Photoshop CS/Plug-Ins/Adobe Photoshop Only/File Formats. You can find the plug-in on the Photoshop CS installation CD in Goodies/Optional Plug-Ins/Photoshop Only/File Formats.

Bill> Or was it too expensive to pay license fees for an encoder Bill> that few Photoshop customers want?

Bill> Either speculation or hard facts welcome…

Bill> PaintShopPro 9 does support JPEG 2000,
Bill> although I have no idea what encoder it uses.


Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in rec.photo.digital…)
JU
jclarke.usenet
Mar 30, 2007
Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams wrote:
Anyone have an idea why anyone’d particularly care about JPEG2000, other than reiterating its features?

To summarize: 1. Archiving, top recommendation here:
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_pre ferences.shtml
2. A superior format for digicams:
If digital cameras produced lossless JPEG 2000 (.JP2 or .J2K), we wouldn’t have to worry about all this RAW conversion baloney. Files would be small like old-style JPEG,

Not if they were losslessly compressed. An 8 meg RAW file, when converted to JPEG 2000 lossless compression, is still 8 meg. Not my opinion, I just checked the file sizes. The small size of JPEGs is not due to their being JPEG but due to their being compressed using a lossy algorithm.

lossless like TIFF,

TIFF isn’t lossless unless you set it to be. It is a container format that can store images compressed using a variety of algorithms, some lossy, some lossless.

and in an instantly editable (nonproprietary) format, unlike RAW.

DNG is nonproprietary as well, and preserves the information contained in proprietary RAW formats.

JPEG 2000 is what the digital camera industry really needs. Either they just don’t know it yet, or they haven’t managed to build processors fast enough to encode it.

Or their opinion about what "the digital camera industry really needs" is different from yours.



–John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
R
Roberto
Mar 31, 2007
JPEG 2000 is dead. In fact it never left the ground. It rolled around the tarmack and then burst in to flames. Don’t feel bad it isn’t he first no the last format that had possibilities that went the way of the doedoe.

=(8)
BP
Barry Pearson
Apr 4, 2007
On Mar 31, 12:50 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
[snip]
Not if they were losslessly compressed. An 8 meg RAW file, when converted to JPEG 2000 lossless compression, is still 8 meg. Not my opinion, I just checked the file sizes.
[snip]

I recently did this test on a Canon IDs II raw image (4992 x 3328):

CR2: 17.6 MB; (DNG: 14.8 MB).

After an 8-bit conversion by ACR, JPEG2000 lossless: 12.5 MB.

After a 16-bit conversion by ACR, JPEG2000 lossless: 51.6 MB.

What bit-depth did you use? Raw files will nearly always be smaller if there is no information loss, because they don’t hold 3 colour information channels per pixel. (Except X3F).


Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
JU
jclarke.usenet
Apr 5, 2007
Barry Pearson wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:50 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
[snip]
Not if they were losslessly compressed. An 8 meg RAW file, when converted to JPEG 2000 lossless compression, is still 8 meg. Not my opinion, I just checked the file sizes.
[snip]

I recently did this test on a Canon IDs II raw image (4992 x 3328):
CR2: 17.6 MB; (DNG: 14.8 MB).

After an 8-bit conversion by ACR, JPEG2000 lossless: 12.5 MB.
After a 16-bit conversion by ACR, JPEG2000 lossless: 51.6 MB.
What bit-depth did you use? Raw files will nearly always be smaller if there is no information loss, because they don’t hold 3 colour information channels per pixel. (Except X3F).

8 bit.
But the point is that a JPEG 2000 lossless is not going to be significantly smaller than a RAW, not that they are exactly the same size.



–John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
JM
James McNangle
Apr 5, 2007
"J. Clarke" wrote:

What bit-depth did you use? Raw files will nearly always be smaller if there is no information loss, because they don’t hold 3 colour information channels per pixel. (Except X3F).

8 bit.
But the point is that a JPEG 2000 lossless is not going to be significantly smaller than a RAW, not that they are exactly the same size.

IF an image had large areas of even colour, in principle a lossless compression could give a substantial saving over a RAW. But large areas of even colour hardly ever occur in the real world, and the extra sensitivity means that you are even less likely to find them in RAW, so the lossless compression is not likely to do you much good. And, even if there were large areas of even colour, they would probably be masked by noise in the sensor, so you still wouldn’t get any significant saving.

James McNangle
R
ronviers
Apr 5, 2007
On Apr 5, 3:30 am, James McNangle wrote:

IF an image had large areas of even colour, in principle a lossless compression could give a substantial saving over a RAW. But large areas of even colour hardly ever occur in the real world, and the extra sensitivity means that you are even less likely to find them in RAW, so the lossless compression is not likely to do you much good. And, even if there were large areas of even colour, they would probably be masked by noise in the sensor, so you still wouldn’t get any significant saving.

James McNangle

Then it looks like my decision to specialize in photographing the hood of the batmobile using an apochro prime in cold weather is going to pay off after all.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups πŸ”₯

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections