Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

JPEG2000 Coming Soon

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the faster-pr0n dept.

Graphics 489

Sonny writes "In a few months time, internet users will be able to make use of the JPEG2000 standard which, its developers claim, enables web graphics to be downloaded much faster than is currently possible. This will not only make graphics-heavy web pages easier to download, it will also preserve image quality. The JPEG standard compresses image files which are then transmitted across the web faster than uncompressed files. Now, researchers at universities around the world have developed JPEG2000, the next-generation image-compression technology under the auspices of the International Standards Organisation. It is the first major upgrade of the standard since it first appeared in the early '90s. What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files. To take advantage of a JPEG2000, web browsers will need a Plug-In for either Internet Explorer or Netscape browsers. These free plug-in's are expected to be available later this year. The extension for the new files will be ".jp2"."

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow! (5, Funny)

Starship Trooper (523907) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300045)

And only two years late, too!

Re:Wow! (4, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300055)

that was exactly what I was thinking. An alternate obvious witty comment would be "I didn't even know they made JPEG2 through JPEG 1999!"

Re:Wow! (-1)

LOTR Troll (544929) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300160)

self-professed wittiness is not wittiness at all.

Re:Wow! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300096)

And this followed by reading every other post on slashdot, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of Slashdotters are incredible blessed with the ability to criticise, complain and attack, under the guise of wit (which in most cases a complete failure). All the while not reflecting on their own inability to come up and implement several of the same technologies which they criticise.

End Rant.

Re:Wow! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300184)

^^^^

Slashdot's original announcement. [slashdot.org]

(oh, incase you were wondering what that ^^^^ thing was, it was me poking the post above for being a complainer himself.

It is TIME FOR ME TO TELL THE JOKES. (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300241)

Sam has been in the computer business for 25 years and is finally sick of the stress. He quits his job and buys 50 acres of land in Vermont as far from humanity as possible. Sam sees the postman once a week and gets groceries once a month. Otherwise it's total peace and quiet. After six months or so of almost total isolation, he's finishing dinner when someone knocks on his door. He opens it and there is a big, bearded Vermonter standing there.

"Name's Hemos... Your neighbor from four miles over the ridge... Having a party Saturday... Thought you'd like to come."

"Great," says Sam, "after six months of this I'm ready to meet some local folks. Thank you."

As Hemos is leaving he stops, "Gotta warn you there's gonna be some drinkin'."

"Not a problem... After 25 years in the computer business, I can drink with the best of 'em."

Again, as he starts to leave Hemos stops. "More 'n' likely gonna be some fightin' too."

"Damn", Sam thinks... "Tough crowd." "Well, I get along with people. I'll be there. Thanks again."

Once again Hemos turns from the door. "I've seen some wild sex at these parties, too."

"Now that's not a problem" says Sam, "Remember I've been alone for six months! I'll definitely be there... By the way, what should I wear?"

Hemos stops in the door again and says, "Whatever you want, just gonna be the two of us."

JPEG2000? Really!?!? (-1)

LOTR Troll (544929) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300046)

Uh, BFD you twats.

first pr0st??? (-1, Offtopic)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300047)

Holy shit fuckers!! Is this my second first post evar 2ice in the same day?! That'd be cool! cause my gf broke up with me last week and I need to get laid... this is a good second ;)

jdW

Excellent! (4, Funny)

Anomolous Cow Herd (457746) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300050)

I hear that the early adopters at goatse.cx will be implementing this very soon for better compression and the deeper, richer reds supported by the standard.

Oh, and FP, BITCHES!

The most useful and widely used benefit (3, Funny)

Saeculorum (547931) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300054)

More pr0n, quicker.

Re:The most useful and widely used benefit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300073)

apparently you didn't read the posting Dept., did you pigfucker?

Re:The most useful and widely used benefit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300074)

And higher quality too.

It's obvious where this is going. (5, Insightful)

checkitout (546879) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300066)

If we aren't all using PNG right now, there's no way we're gonna be using jp2

I think we're just stuck with jpeg and gif for about the next 5-10 years, until browsers in general get reinvented.

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (5, Informative)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300094)

"If we aren't all using PNG right now, there's no way we're gonna be using jp2 "

You're talking about the difference between 300k and 20k. The reason that .PNG wasn't adopted in the internet world is that it didn't compress enough. Also, it's alpha channel was never really utilized. There are those in the 3D-Art world that think .PNG is a god-send, however.

JPEG2000 has a few things going for it:

- Familiar Name
- Familiar Standard
- Smaller filesizes
- Likely to be better supported by IE and other browsers

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (1)

_typo (122952) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300095)

I think we're just stuck with jpeg and gif for about the next 5-10 years, until browsers in general get reinvented.

How much reinventing is required to support a new image format? If it's open and well documented konqueror/mozilla could have support for it in a release version within a month or two. And if IE supports it soon, we might start seeing websites actually using it often.

But this is really not a Web-only thing. This is a jpeg replacement that can be used wherever jpeg is used now.

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (3, Interesting)

GauteL (29207) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300099)

Speak for yourself. I'm heavily using PNG right now. Why is it important that everyone should use new standards? As long as they are supported in browsers (*) and I am free to use them, I don't care what everyone else is using.

Sure, shorter download time would be nice, but PNG isn't really providing that. PNG however makes the job of the web developer easier.

(*) I'm still annoyed that IE doesn't support alpha-transparency though.

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (3, Informative)

Tack (4642) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300136)

(*) I'm still annoyed that IE doesn't support alpha-transparency though.

It does, you just have to use the IE-proprietary AlphaImageLoader filter (it's a CSS extension). I agree this is a pain in the ass, and why they just don't support the alpha channel with regular img tags is beyond me, but at least with a little PHP or Javascript you can make it work.

Jason.

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300196)

I assume the poster means per-pixel alpha in the PNG format - not per-image alpha in CSS.

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (2)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300172)

If we aren't all using PNG right now, there's no way we're gonna be using jp2

Who are you ?
I use .png very often, for example in my programs (tiles, textures) or when I save scanner output.

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (2)

yesthatguy (69509) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300246)

Look at graphics on websites that you visit. I haven't found one major site that uses pngs (not that I've looked all that often, but wherever I look, it's a .jpg or .gif). I throw my graphics around as .pngs, but that doesn't make it a standard. As an internet community, we aren't using PNG.

Re:It's obvious where this is going. (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300245)

png is a good alternative to gif, however jpg2000 is on a different level.. lossy compression for small filesizes. Png is a good format for situations where you need the best quality for the graphic, for instance a map.

Stupid extensions (5, Insightful)

binner1 (516856) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300068)

Why .jp2??? Why not .jpeg2. This legacy DOS naming convention drives me nuts. Not even Windows is crappy enough to still require 8.3 filenames.

I still cringe when I see default.htm. It's a frickin' html file, name it properly.

-Ben

Re:Stupid extensions (1)

an_mo (175299) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300087)


Why do you care so much?

besides, jp2 is faster to type than jpeg2.

Re:Stupid extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300113)

Not with tab completion.

% gimp foo.j\t

Re:Stupid extensions (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300143)

> besides, jp2 is faster to type than jpeg2.

We can compromise on jpg2 then. :)

Re:Stupid extensions (5, Insightful)

checkitout (546879) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300088)

Why .jp2??? Why not .jpeg2.

Because they're latching onto the idea (and popularity) of .mp3 and we dont have a .mpeg3 extension in active use.

Re:Stupid extensions (1)

TooTallFourThinking (206334) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300133)

Actually, it would be .mpeg1layer3. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Stupid extensions (1)

long_john_stewart_mi (549153) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300142)

Why .jp2??? Why not .jpeg2. This legacy DOS naming convention drives me nuts. Not even Windows is crappy enough to still require 8.3 filenames. I still cringe when I see default.htm. It's a frickin' html file, name it properly.
Why not make it .jpeg2000 then, since that's the real name? I would really enjoy making web sites with an extension longer than many file names... =(

Re:Stupid extensions (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300183)

Don't you mean .JointPhotographicExpertsGroup2000?

Re:Stupid extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300158)

I agree with you on 8.3 filenames. I don't like seeing "jpg", even; I prefer files named what they are: foo.jpeg, etc.

Seeing HTM sort of pisses me off too, but only because it tells me the webmaster is using Windows. :)

Let's think about it, though.

HTM = Hypertext Markup
HTML = Hypertext Markup Language

Which describes the file better? The file contains markup, doesn't it? Unless your webpage is teaching your visitors Spanish (or C), I don't think the usage of "language" to describe the file is entirely necessary. That is, after expanding the acronym.

I guess you could go the same route with JPEG. After all, a JPEG file is not a "group" is it? So why is that G even there?

But I will continue to name my files .html and .jpeg. (Capital letters piss me off too.)

Re:Stupid extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300228)

I guess you could go the same route with JPEG. After all, a JPEG file is not a "group" is it? So why is that G even there?

If you want to get really pedantic, it should be .jfif

Re:Stupid extensions (4, Insightful)

Snowfox (34467) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300210)

Why .jp2??? Why not .jpeg2. This legacy DOS naming convention drives me nuts. Not even Windows is crappy enough to still require 8.3 filenames.

Just because names can be made longer doesn't mean that they should.

.jp2 is sufficiently clear, and it won't clutter diretory listings. Save the longer, more descriptive extensions for more obscure things.

Re:Stupid extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300224)

Not even Windows is crappy enough to still require 8.3 filenames.
I was so happy to see ASP.NET files named .aspx. Of course, being web, it's only of matter on the server and the server can only be run on XP and 2k. Regardless, I appreciate the gesture, Microsoft.

A bit late... (3, Informative)

qnonsense (12235) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300075)

This tech does seem to be a bit late, and I don't just mean behind schedule. I mean LATE. I remember reading about JPEG2000, and other "next-gen" compression types, wavelets, fractal compression, etc., way, way back in the dark old modem days when the big controversy was Flex56k or X2. Nowadays, really what's the point. JPEG (plain) is just fine (and PNG is even better), now that bandwidth, processing power and memory are to be had aplenty. Even freaking cell phones have 8 megs of ram, a fast processor, and 2.4mbits/sec connections. JP2 might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but face it: the glory days of image compression are over.

ciao

Never late. (3, Insightful)

Electrawn (321224) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300112)

If my digital camera can squeeze out 5 extra pictures ...great.

Many places are STILL on dial up and will continue to be.

Any new technology that compresses well can only be a good thing.

Re:A bit late... (1)

TooTallFourThinking (206334) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300181)

Actually, the glory days of image compression are not quite over. I agree that modems and slow connections are being phased out, this process is not yet complete. I still know many of people who have modems.

But the main reason why I think new image compression standards are important is for having website chalk full of .jp2 images without the needing a lot of bandwidth. Hell, the website doesn't even need to have lots of .jp2 images, just a couple multiplied by a large number of people loading and visiting the site takes up plenty of bandwidth. If you can take the file size of the images down, you've saved yourself some bandwidth. How much is more a function on the popularity of the site and the number of images on it, but it is in this area where smaller images are a factor. Fast connections (for servers or anything else) are still expensive.

Re:A bit late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300197)

Think digital cameras, cellphones, etc. Appliances where memory and bandwidth isn't as great as with modern PCs. That's where this will be very useful. Also, it has very cool "progressive encoding" -- if the image you want to download is 2048x2048, you can read the first 1/4 of it and have an image that is 1024x1024. Or 1/16 and get a 512x512 image. When I surf the web on my wristwatch and don't need the high resoltion images, the website doesn't need to keep around low res images for me.

Re:A bit late... (2)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300206)

First, contrary to what you may have heard, broadband is not ubiquitous. I live in a completely developed (sub)urban area and my only choice for broadband is wireless that requires an antenna that is not allowed by my HOA. My mother lives a couple of miles away and she can't get a cable modem or DSL either.

Beyond that I don't know anyone who feels like he has too much bandwidth. There seems to be a principal that a lot of people (especially windows programmers) subscribe to that says "my use of resources should expand to consume the resources available." I don't understand why this is, especially since we live in, and have been living in for some time, an age of multi-tasking.

-Peter

PNG still too big for pictures (1)

ChanxOT5 (542547) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300211)

I love PNG for storing my files, but when I share my photo album and its 1/2 a meg per picture at 96 dpi, my website is only viewable by people on the LAN.

Even with cablemodems, repeatedly downloading 1/2 a meg per picture just isn't sane. I currently offer jpegs on my site so that people can view them, even lossy, but at least quickly.

PNG? (1, Informative)

lunadude (449261) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300078)

What's up with PNG? It seems that could blow JP2 away. PNG has 8bit alpha channel for cleaner transparency than GIF and smaller files than JPG.

Re:PNG? (4, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300126)

...smaller files than JPG.

Sorry, try again. An image compessed with PNG (even at the highest compression setting) will tend be considerably larger than the image compresed with JPEG. What PNG gives you is lossless compression and an alpha channel (that's not even properly supported in many browsers).

Re:PNG? (1)

the_verb (552510) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300128)

PNG files are NOT smaller than JPG when saved in full color.

A PNG file has higher potential image quality than JPG because of its lossless nature, and smaller file size than GIF due to a more efficient storage technique.

It is NOT smaller than JPG in true color, though. A 24 bit PNG image is freakin' huge.

--the verb

So its a trade off against computation? (1)

happyhippy (526970) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300081)

I cant get the pdf information to load.

So it is basically a shit more 64x64 subimages? Or is it 128x128 now?

Re:So its a trade off against computation? (2)

psavo (162634) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300114)

no, it's subdivided many, many times. mostly by factor of 2, but probably adaptated (like 800px -> 200px+600px).. it should stop subdividing at about 8.

Re:So its a trade off against computation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300156)

Err, it's not using DCT anymore, but wavelets. In the case of jpeg2000 it means you get some "blur" instead of subimage artifacts.

Meh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300082)

Sure, it's cool and all, but will its new features compare to Lurawave [luratech.com] ? You'll need to download a special plugin to use this new jpeg2000 format - same deal with Lurawave? Why wait? :P

Slogan for JPEG2000... (1, Funny)

Navius Eurisko (322438) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300083)

"JPEG2000 Standard! For when you needed that hardcore pr0n yesterday!"

free bandwidth (5, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300085)

The JPEG standard compresses image files which are then transmitted across the web faster than uncompressed files.

excellent, using jpeg2000 increases my bandwidth too!

There I was thinking they downloaded at the same speed but in less time!

Re:free bandwidth (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300243)

Insightful?

fucking idiot moderators... the text was clearly written targeting a nontechnical audience...

Re:free bandwidth (1)

cgray4 (39638) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300244)

If you think about the obvious physics analogy, you'll see that you're both right. Remember v = d / t? If you go the same distance in less time, then you are going faster. Extrapolate this to the web.

If you look at speed as kb/s, then you're right -- they do go at the same speed. However, if you think of it as information/s, it is faster.

And stop using so many exclamtion points! It's really not that exciting!

Slow to change ... (5, Insightful)

Jobe_br (27348) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300091)

I don't want to be a nay-sayer in any way, but I predict that this will catch on about as quickly as PNGs replacing GIFs. Most professional quality sites still use GIFs instead of PNG, even though tools such as Adobe's Imageready and Macromedia's Fireworks have supported the PNG format alongside GIFs for a while now AND most major browsers support PNGs natively (which wasn't the case not too long ago, with IE4, I believe).

Until the .jp2 format doesn't require a plugin for 99% of the browsers out there, it won't be widely used, IMHO. Of course, I could be wrong and the .jp2 format might not even be meant for wide-spread adoption, and mainly for particular niche uses (such as viewing hubble images or replacing the need for lossless TIFFs).

Just my $0.02.

Re:Slow to change ... (5, Interesting)

Darren Winsper (136155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300175)

The major blocker for PNG is the fact that IE does not support its alpha channel. I originally used PNGs with alpha channels on a web site I made, but then had to replace them when I found out IE didn't support the alpha channel. This was a pain in the arse because the end result looks a tad crappy.

GIF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300093)

GIF is the best image format. It's small and it allows me to do animations.

Aren't JGPs only meant for porn?

Re:GIF (1)

NotoriousQ (457789) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300146)

You are so right, yet so wrong.

Yes GIF is small and yes it does animations, and yes it even does interlacing. However, it sucks for anything that is not a tiny little icon. The image is grainy, and its compression makes the smooth color transitions not very good. Also bad is that Compuserve is still the owner of the format.

Although gif may be appropriate for small images, the photo quality images look much better in jpeg.

That said, i think that jpeg is still not the best. I guess that is why they are changing it

Re:GIF (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300267)

yeah images look grainy because gif only supports 256 colors. Sounds pretty outdated these days when most people run at 24/32-bit color

JPEG does have a lossless mode (5, Interesting)

angryargus (559948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300101)

What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files.

JPEG does support a lossless mode, it's just that no one uses it. To paraphrase, JPEG supports a lossless spatial algorithm that operates in the pixel domain. Some amount of prediction is used, resulting in about 2:1 compression, but the error terms for the predictions are included in the data stream (encoded using either Huffman or arithmetic coding), resulting in no net errors.

What's a lot more exciting is JPEG2000's use of wavelet compression, which isn't mentioned at all.

Re:JPEG does have a lossless mode (3, Funny)

vinnythenose (214595) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300154)

You mean someone is actually going to use Wavelets for something???? Egads, all I've ever seen is endless r&d on it and it never seems to go anywhere, even though they claim that it would revolutionize compression in the image world!

Horray for wavelets! Now if only someone would re-explain them to me. I didn't catch it the first time and no one has said anything high level enough since (I'm not interested in the nitty gritty at this point)

Re:JPEG does have a lossless mode (2)

psavo (162634) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300164)

afaik .ogg uses wavelets, and gets better sound at lower bitrate (subjective..) than FFT -based mp3.

Re:JPEG does have a lossless mode (2)

MWright (88261) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300212)

Vorbis (the sound codec; keep in mind that ogg is just the container format!) currently only uses the DCT, the same transform used in current JPEGs as well as MP3s. However, according to their FAQ, wavelets will be supported in the future (I'm too lazy to find the link; sorry!).


Ogg Tarkin (the video codec) will be using wavelets from the beginning, though.

Re:JPEG does have a lossless mode (2)

FreeMath (230584) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300231)

Ogg Vorbis uses MDCT and not wavelets.

See the FAQ [xiph.org] for details.

Re:JPEG does have a lossless mode (2)

stripes (3681) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300237)

JPEG does support a lossless mode, it's just that no one uses it.

Lossless JPEG uses patented IBM stuff (I think the rest of JPEG uses various patents as well, but everyone agreed to freely license them, IBM didn't agree for the lossless stuff). I think that is the big reason pretty much nobody uses it.

does this mean that... (2)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300104)

porn sites get more efficent, making more money, or will they lower their fees...

tough choice.

Plugin for IE? (1, Offtopic)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300108)

JPEG2000 Plugin for IE? More like an ActiveX control for IE. IE6 no longer supports Netscape Style Plug-ins. I'll never forgive MS for that.

It's for that reason I won't go past IE 5.01. I refuse to update to a browser that removes standard features. The sad thing is, I may not be able to enjoy JPEG 2000 because of that.

Hopefully Opera will, however...

Re:Plugin for IE? (2)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300171)

What a narrowminded and stupid thing to say. You will never update a browser that removes standard features? So in otherwords, you want your browser (/OS/all other programs etc) to be a collection of legacy junk which can never be changed for fear of alienating you? Changes sometimes need to happen, and given that by the time the change to 6.0 happened there was no plugin that I ever ran into that didn't have an ActiveX version, there's no reason for your ranting.

Re:Plugin for IE? (2)

stripes (3681) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300263)

Changes sometimes need to happen, and given that by the time the change to 6.0 happened there was no plugin that I ever ran into that didn't have an ActiveX version, there's no reason for your ranting

Yes but this change "needed" to happen because MS managed to become the big player, and didn't want people writing plugins that would work with MSIE and Netscape, they wanted them to write a MSIE only ActiveX control, and then decide the extra effort needed to support Netscape wasn't worth it.

It's not like oh, say, dropping a.out because it doesn't support all the debugging symbols you might need, or it is hard to support shared libs with a.out...in that case you are really buying something for your pain. In MSIE's case they are getting something for your pain, and what they are getting is more pain for you.

Not my idea of a good deal, but if you like it, go for it.

Re:Plugin for IE? (4, Informative)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300269)

"What a narrowminded and stupid thing to say. You will never update a browser that removes standard features? So in otherwords, you want your browser (/OS/all other programs etc) to be a collection of legacy junk which can never be changed for fear of alienating you?"

Um, no. I don't want to upgrade to a browser by a company who wants to bend standards in their favor, leaving other browsers unable to cope. The advantage to Netscape Style Plug-ins over ActiveX controls is that they play in other browsers like Netscape (DUH!) and Opera. This isn't a case of an old standard no longer being followed, it's a case of MS changing the de-facto standard so that IE remains dominant. So no, I'm not willing to change browser/OS/etc over this.

Now that IE doesn't support non-standard controls, this means that anybody who makes an IE plug-in is stuck making an ActiveX interface.

My favorite browser is Opera. It doesn't support ActiveX. According to their site, it won't support ActiveX. Here's a quote:

"Opera does not support ActiveX, nor does it support VBScript. There are three reasons for this:

Opera Software AS is committed to supporting open Internet standards, recommended by the W3C, something neither ActiveX nor VBScript, being license issued Microsoft technologies, are.

The second reason is much more simple: There's just not enough market demand for these technologies to warrant the cost of implementing them.

In addition, some reports raise the question of how secure ActiveX is. It has been claimed that ActiveX has serious problems with security, and some even say that the problem is an almost complete lack of security. The same concerns have been raised about VBScript."

So besides making me stick with an insecure plug-in interface, what other reason is there for me to go to IE6 or newer?

"Changes sometimes need to happen, and given that by the time the change to 6.0 happened there was no plugin that I ever ran into that didn't have an ActiveX version, there's no reason for your ranting. "

Changes? Sure! But to disable a widely used technology? Uh uh. Sorry. I'm not rolling over and taking that. True narrowmindedness would be if I were to say "Okay Microsoft, thank you for making the choice for me. You know more than I do!"

As for not being able to get an ActiveX version of a plug-in, I can give you an example: The company I work for. (Who shall remain nameless.)

IE 6's betas supported our plug-in just fine. And then, once it was released, I had customers telling me it no longer worked. Somewhere between beta 2 and release they removed support for it. Did they tell us (a registerred MS Developer...)? No. They just did it. Their knowledge base called the removal of Netscape Style Plugins 'a security feature."

Interesting, I guess not being able to run as much stuff means less chance of security breach. Whatever. Maybe if MS had said "In 6 months when IE 6 is released, it won't support NSP's" Id have little room to gripe. But MS just did it. So my company (a startup company I might add) is forced to write an ActiveX control. We looked into it, and its not as easy as it may seem. For one thing, our product has a lot of web-based features that would all need to be rigourously tested. Since browser functionality is not our core focus right now, we don't have the engineering time to spend on it. Do our customers understand that? Only after I explain our priorities to them.

The worst part is that IE doesn't give any clue as to what is wrong. The behaviour of running a NSP on IE is the same as not having a plugin installed at all! What a wonderful way to prevent MS from getting customer service complaints!

In any case, thanks for calling me narrow-minded even though it's pretty obvious I know more about this topic than you do.

Getting back to the original topic, I hope the JPEG2000 group releases a Netscape Style Plugin so I can use it with Opera. I am geninuinely concerned that what they'll do is release an ActiveX version because IE is the dominant browser, and that's it. If they do that, they'll be further supporting MS's dominance. Unfortunately, I can see JPEG2000 causing that if the images are really as compressed as they say.

Re:Plugin for IE? (1)

Slash Veteran (561542) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300222)

OK, you say they removed a feature...what functionality are you no longer able to access?

All the legacy plugins I'm aware of have ActiveX counterparts (and have for quite some time).

I don't give a flip if it's a plugin, activex, or a fucking fred flintstone bird inside a camera...if I can still access the SAME content, and it still renders correctly, and perhaps renders more reliably and quickly, well, let them do what they will.

Re:Plugin for IE? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300242)

shut up, you're a fag, nobody cares what you have to say, go away.

Artwalker.com to use JPEG 2000 (3, Interesting)

Wonderkid (541329) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300110)

About time! JPEG 2000 was mentioned in Electronic Engineering Times many years ago. The next revision of Artwalker.com (where you explore the world though landscape paintings) will be completely displayed using JP2 because it has one vital characteristic: Images can be scaled in real time (via the server). For example, instead of displaying a thumbnail of say 50x60 pixels, and having the user click the thumbnail to view the full size image (say, 640x480), a JP2 image can be made to display as a percentage of the total size of the display window (or browser width) in a similar fashion to a vector graphic, such as that generated by Flash. This will be excellent for mobile devices with differing screen resolutions and make for some very cool ZOOM tools on browsers and in Photoshop etc. We have been waiting for this since 1996, when we launched Artwalker! Soon it will be time to get going on converting all our high resolution images to JP2. A lot of work!

Re:Artwalker.com to use JPEG 2000 (1)

Papineau (527159) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300191)

Actually, nearly every browser scale the image they receive to fit the HEIGHT and WIDTH attributes of an IMG tag. That's what's used by 1x1 transparent GIFs to place some other images at the right place (pixel-wise), so you don't need a gazillion different transparent GIFs to fit all the dimensions you need in your site.

Now, if you'd like the browser to adapt the image to something else (eg. browser window width), it's on the browser side that you have to modify something, but it can be adapted to any type of image, not only JPEG2000. This way you don't need to do thumbnails, but you display the same data with 2 different zoom factors.

And if you do that on the server, zooms can be supported for any image type, you only need the proper module for your web-server. It might be faster for a JPEG2000, but I don't see anything special about JPEG2000 wrt server-side zooming.

Mozilla & jpeg2000 (5, Informative)

Majix (139279) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300111)

See this bugzilla entry [mozilla.org] for Mozilla's jpeg2000 progress.

Doesn't seem too promising:
If you look at appendix L of the jpeg2000 draft, there are 22 companies who believe that implementing the spec may require use of their patents.

PNG still hasn't taken off despite being supported in all major browsers (now if only IE did proper alpha, any year now...), how much chance does an image format that requires third party plugins have?

Uses new compression standard (5, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300115)

In unconfirmed reports, the developers were said to be using the lzip [sourceforge.net] algorithm. As quoted on C|Net:
We plan to integrate this into an ActivePlugin plugin for Internet Explorer 7, which will allow users to set their compression preferences, and the browser will request a given compression level. Initial testing indicates that this works, but we're experiencing some data loss. We'll address this with the developers and lzip, and probably get Microsoft involved. They have lots of experience with data corruption.

Re:Uses new compression standard (2)

colmore (56499) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300203)

"[We'll] get Microsoft involved. They have lots of experience with data corruption."

You can say that again!

I think it'll catch on (2, Insightful)

Zuna (317219) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300116)

Don't think that just because it causes the user to download a plugin that web developers will be afraid to use it. After all, just look at Flash.

However, I think it'll really catch on whenever the next versions of the browsers are released with standard support for JPEG2000.

Back to the future. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300119)

It's time to dust off our old modems, people.

Faster ..... (1)

smallblackdog (266198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300122)

PR0N!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally my connection can keep up with my wrist. MUWAHAHAHAHAH

Why plug-ins? (1)

ewoods (108845) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300123)

And not native browser support? That doesn't make sense.

Re:Why plug-ins? (2)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300179)

Because you can write a plugin/ActiveX control today and have anyone who uses a compatible browser download it (in a small download) tomorrow. It takes a lot longer to roll a new release of a browser, and a lot of people won't upgrade.

Re:Why plug-ins? (1)

dorward (129628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300217)

And not native browser support? That doesn't make sense.

Becuase a third party can write plugins for popular browsers. How about you add native jpeg 2000 support to IE?

No doubt it will become native in future browsers, but initially its a plugin thing.

Why not just "JPEG 2" (1)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300125)

The year convention is obviously broke when the
project is late.

found this nice comparasion (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300127)

I thought this [aware.com] was a good comparasion between JPEG and JPEG2000.

Patents, Patents and more Patents (5, Insightful)

JohnA (131062) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300130)

According to this EE Times article [eetimes.com] , there are several patents that are licensed "royalty free" to implementers of the JPEG2000 Part 1 specification. Sound familiar?

I remember a similar promise made about LZW compression in the GIF standard by Compuserve. What is to stop these companies from requiring license fees at some arbitrary point in the future once the technology is widely used?

Additionally, there doesn't seem to be very much due dilligence performed in regards to other patents over the techniques utilized in the standard. Even if all of the known patents are licensed royalty-free, there exists the very real possiblity that a submarine patent will be exposed, after the standard is widely utilized, of course.

Of course, this won't matter once all of our PCs are replaced with sealed, SSSCA-compliant, government issued "convergence appliances"... :-)

Wow. This couldn't have been timed better (5, Interesting)

adamwright (536224) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300151)

I've been involved in JPEG 2000 for a while now, and come to the conclusion that..

A) It's an excellent codec, though computationally heavy
B) The design of the codestream along with JP2/JPX file format has a lot of potential to create a "new" type of image that isn't just a picture. Yes, you've heard this before, but this time it's built in at a codec level. In stream ROI's, very flexible reconstruction and compression controllable through great numbers of options - and that's only the codec (at a *very* rudimentary level :).
C) It won't succeed without a decent opensource, "IPR free" (as much as is possible) implementation.
D) Read C again. It's important

To this end, I've started (with support from others in the JPEG 2000 community), a JPEG 2000 Group (See http://www.j2g.org [j2g.org] - It's very sparse at the moment, but if you're interested, bookmark it and come back in about a month). Tom Lane and IGJ have expressed no interested in JPEG2000, for various reasons (which I don't entirely disagree with, but I'd rather be proactive and try to correct flaws than walk away totally).

The aims of the JPEG 2000 Group are to create a public, open source (probably BSD license) implementation of "Part 1" (This is the codestream syntax, codec, and file format wrapper). We'll also provide a community JPEG 2000 resource. To facilitate this, we've already attained a Class C liaison with the committee. This grants all members the option of acquiring the standard free of charge. We also get a minimal channel back into the process to give opinions.

The point of this ever rambling post is this : We need members. The standard is large, and the support around it will be larger. We need volunteers who would be interested in assisting in the creation of the codec. Sadly, "Membership" is going to require some form of contribution and commitment to acquire copies of the texts you'll need - I hate this as much as you, but it was accept it, or don't get any copies at all (without $$$). If you're interested in contributing in any way (code, documents, testing, support), please drop by the at forum [j2g.org] - Even if its only a passing interest, I'd be happy to go into more detail regarding the project (or just JPEG 2000 itself). I'd do it here, but I'd loose all my (low :) karma in offtopics.

So, rather than bitch about the lack of a free implementation and how late it is, and how it'll never get used, come and help out! You know you (might possibly | maybe | someday) want to!

will it actually get off the ground.... (2, Informative)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300152)

anytime soon that is. To take advantage of a JPEG2000, web browsers will need a Plug-In for either Internet Explorer or Netscape browsers. I don't mind downloading a plug-in to get faster images. but the average user only knows plug-ins as the airfreshener glad makes. Not to mention will a company be willing to switch over to using this format since most average users won't see. Unless IE, netscape, mozilla, etc get support for it by default it won't be used to much.

libjpeg (2, Insightful)

NotoriousQ (457789) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300163)

web browsers will need a Plug-In for either Internet Explorer or Netscape browsers.

or some of us that compile our own code and use dynamic and static libraries, the change would be as transparent as recompiling libjpeg.

just another reason I like open source.

Ah hahahah (2)

vinnythenose (214595) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300165)

It's good to see the porn comments piling up. This is worse than the body count in a bad slasher flick.

What happened to DjVu? (5, Interesting)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300173)

Everyone is still using old formats like GIF and JPEG.

But there are other, more powerful formats.

For a non-descructive compression, the PNG format is fortunately getting more and more popular, although the late inclusion in Internet Explorer slows down its wide adoption.

But when it comes to a destructive compression, there's an excellent (and not new) format made by AT&T and called DjVu. It was one of the first wavelets-based format.

DjVu is really better than Jpeg. Images are better looking (more contrast, less pixels with odd colors), and files are way smaller. Plus you can smoothly zoom any DjVu image without getting big and ugly blocks.

DjVu has been available for a while as a plugin for common browsers.

There's a 100% free implementation of the format called DjVuLibre [sf.net] .

However, nobody uses it. I don't understand why. Some times ago, it may have been because compression was slow. But nowadays, it's no more a valid point.

People are enthusiast for Jpeg2000. But why would Jpeg2000 be adopted while DjVu has never been?


Re:What happened to DjVu? (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300248)

I thought DjVu was for book stuff like adobe acrobat. I submitted the DjVu story on slashdot back in nov 2000 (see here [slashdot.org] ) and everyone bashed me saying it wasn't an image format. Has it changed?

Good timing (2)

kwishot (453761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300185)

Now that everyone has broadband and can play streaming video.....

Nice Ad (2)

cybermage (112274) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300190)

It's always good when the submitted story is more up-to-date than the site it links to. The current press release" [jpeg.org] on the site is dated August, 2000.

Could this story be submitted by an insider? Hmmm... I know, I know, Slashdot != "investigative journalism"

comparisons to other formats (5, Informative)

big.ears (136789) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300195)

According to this pdf [jpeg.org] ,
the report compares 4 compression codecs, and found for a small sample found:

MEAN LOSSLESS COMPRESSION RATIOS (big is good)
------------------
JPEG 2000: 2.5
JPEG-LS: 2.98
L-JPEG: 2.09
PNG: 3.52

JPEG-LS is was usually the best, but PNG had a few really good sample that pushed its average up. Actually, these outliers appear important, because that is what really separates the codecs on this metric.

Lossless Decoding Times, relative to JPEG-LS (big is bad)
-----------------
JPEG 2000: 4.3
JPEG-LS: 1
L-JPEG: .9
PNG: 1.2

This doesn't make JPG2K appear too impressive. What it does offer, however, is features. Like Region Of Interest (ROI) coding, good lossy compression, random access, and other goodies that some people may really care about. The report claims that png doesn't do lossy encoding, which is news to me, but it does appear to be one of their major selling points for jpeg-2000 over png.

GREAT! (1)

americanFatCat (550598) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300198)

Now my page can have even less content!

proprietary format (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300201)

check out the license, it's a very closed and proprietary format

JPEG2000 Business (1)

TorinEdge (194953) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300209)

Worked for a company by the name of Image Power Inc. They tried to use JPEG2000 as a business model since around 1987, they went tits up last year, wayyyy too many patent holders.(and not enough deal-closers, but that's another ball of wax entirely)

B SD-licensed JPEG-2000 implementation (5, Informative)

datrus (265707) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300214)

Hey, I've implemented a JPEG-2000 codec using
a BSD-style license.
It's been tested at the MIT biodmedical department already for compression of medical images.
It's available at http://j2000.org/.
It would be nice to see this work in my favourite browsers.

What's cool about JPEG2000? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3300229)

Several things, besides simply "good compression."

JP2 uses wavelet compression such that an image is effectively compressed at various resolutions below the originally, independently. Not only does this allow a high level of redundancy removal (which is why wavelets are good in the first place) and thus high compression, but jp2 tags each of these sections (subbands) separately in the compressed file.

So what? Well, a file with all of these sections is effectively a losslessly compressed image. However, this file can be further compressed (loss-ily) by simply throwing out some of these tagged sections! That is, you can make a "lossless" thumbnail image by keeping all the lower resolution subbands. Or, you can get a lower-quality (but smaller) fullsize version by throwing out some subbands at each resolution.

Better still, this manipulation can be done without decompressing the original image. Simply using only certain tagged sections of the file.

Consider this possible application of all this: Digital Cameras. A camera could take images at full resolution and lossless quality until the memory card starts filling up. Then, gradually as more and more room is required, it could quickly reduce the size or quality of previous pictures to make room for new pictures. Thus, you always have "enough" room for more pictures, provided you don't mind the quality reduction.

Of course, there are numerous uses for web applications -- thumbnails and full-sized images could be the same file, provided the web server knows how to parse the image file. (Little or no computation necessary, just sending parts of the file)

Anyways, JPEG2000 is very very cool.

And in the fringe benefits.. (1)

olman (127310) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300254)

You can honestly say Jpeg2000 will improve your sex life!

In the words of the great Homer... (1)

mtnharo (523610) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300268)

"Mmmm, one million times more porn! *gurgle*"

Coming Soon to a PC near you! - NOT! (2, Interesting)

FaithAndReason (112179) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300271)

Am I missing the joke - is this some sort of overdue April Fool's joke? Did this story get sent here by Mallett's time machine from last week?

Or did /. just regurgitate somebody's press release?

As far as I can tell with a quick google, nothing has been done with this standard since early 2000 (maybe that's why the standard name hasn't been updated, eh.) I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for widespread adoption any time soon...

Faster downloads == more images? (1)

spoonist (32012) | more than 12 years ago | (#3300273)

... web graphics to be downloaded much faster than is currently possible.

Yeah, right... then web designers will just make bigger/more images and, thus, any savings gained by this codec will be moot...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?