Reading mode: Light Dark

JPEG2000 upgrades for camera's

  • Thread starter Thread starter crobey
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
C

crobey

Guest
From what I've heard lately JPEG2000 is about a year away from being finalized and actually implemented within digital cameras. Any confirmatation for that estimate?

Are there any current manufacturers who have said that there will be a firmware upgrade to support JPEG2000 within the current crop of digital cameras. Is this even feasible? I’m not sure what the hardware or software requirements are for saving wavelet compressed images.
 
I agree. The new JPEG2000 will be based on wavelets. I've played around with wavelet based compression and 10-to-1 ratios are possible that are visually lossless (ie, I can barely tell the difference in a side by side comparison). There also seems to be dramatically fewer artifacts.

It would be a great help to know if manufacturers of current digicams have planned for this by way of firmware upgrades. (It's possible that cameras being introduced in first half 2001 will have JPEG2000 capability--but I've heard of no manufacturer committing to that.)

A good starting point for more info is:

http://www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.htm
Chris Robey said:
From what I've heard lately JPEG2000 is about a year away from being> finalized and actually implemented within digital cameras. Any> confirmatation for that estimate?> > Are there any current manufacturers who have said that there will be a> firmware upgrade to support JPEG2000 within the current crop of digital> cameras. Is this even feasible? I'm not sure what the hardware or> software requirements are for saving wavelet compressed images.>
Click to expand...
 
Mabye that year figure was wishfull thinking. How about 2 years? Guess I'll have to check back next october
 
crobey said:
Mabye that year figure was wishfull thinking. How about 2 years?
Guess I'll have to check back next october
Click to expand...
BreezeBrowser supports the writing of JPEG2000 from Canon RAW format. The standard is agreed AFAIK, but many manufacturers have money invested in existing hardware - the D30 does JPG in hardware apparently - and I expect them to milk at least this Xmas before splashing the 'upgrade to a higher quality' message across consumers who they have already reamed...

--Peter Galbavy http://www.wonderland.org/Help decode CRW files: http://www.wonderland.org/crw/
 
See
http://www.luratech.com/

for a commercially available product that will work on any TIF RAW etc format. I don't believe the delay is with J2000 algorithms. THey are ready and waiting. I think the problem is the camera companies can't get fast enough CPUs for their new digital cameras. Wavelet compression is better but it does take more computer horsepower to run. The manufacturers are having to trade the potential j2000 compression against faster frame to frame shooting speeds or other features that require computational overhead.
Peter Galbavy said:
crobey said:
Mabye that year figure was wishfull thinking. How about 2 years?
Guess I'll have to check back next october
Click to expand...
BreezeBrowser supports the writing of JPEG2000 from Canon RAW
format. The standard is agreed AFAIK, but many manufacturers have
money invested in existing hardware - the D30 does JPG in hardware
apparently - and I expect them to milk at least this Xmas before
splashing the 'upgrade to a higher quality' message across
consumers who they have already reamed...

--
Peter Galbavy
http://www.wonderland.org/
Help decode CRW files: http://www.wonderland.org/crw/
Click to expand...
 
Since there's no off the shelf software that supports JPEG 2000, what are you going to do with your files after you download them? This is a commercial venture with licensing fee's. I know of no one making software ready to pay these fee's. Why should camera companies tie this to their machines to listen to complaints about not being able to load the image into, let us say, Photoshop.

Dave
crobey said:
crobey said:
Mabye that year figure was wishfull thinking. How about 2 years?
Guess I'll have to check back next october
Click to expand...
--
chris robey
http://www.chris.robey.com
http://www.pbase.com/crobey/root&view=recent
Click to expand...
 
The main JPEG limitation I care about is the bit depth. With ERI-JPEG you can regain something comparible to 36 bit color (12 bit per sensor). I think that's a significant advantage. If it wasn't limited to Kodak, it would be even better!

Paul
crobey said:
crobey said:
Mabye that year figure was wishfull thinking. How about 2 years?
Guess I'll have to check back next october
Click to expand...
--
chris robey
http://www.chris.robey.com
http://www.pbase.com/crobey/root&view=recent
Click to expand...
 
Paul W. Walters said:
The main JPEG limitation I care about is the bit depth. With
ERI-JPEG you can regain something comparible to 36 bit color (12
bit per sensor). I think that's a significant advantage. If it
wasn't limited to Kodak, it would be even better!
Click to expand...
JPEG2000 supports bit depths from 1 to 16, allowing different depths for each plane if desired. So one could have a 12*3 bit per pixel file, lossless or lossy. Note that I'm basing this information on the November 2000 paper "The JPEG2000 Still Image Coding System" by Christopoulos et al. and it is possible things have changed.

ERI-JPEG does look very neat. I think if you had JPEG2000 you could get something similar, though it wouldn't be as backward compatible.
 
Hi Dana
Dana Jacobsen said:
Paul W. Walters said:
The main JPEG limitation I care about is the bit depth. With
ERI-JPEG you can regain something comparible to 36 bit color (12
bit per sensor). I think that's a significant advantage. If it
wasn't limited to Kodak, it would be even better!
Click to expand...
JPEG2000 supports bit depths from 1 to 16, allowing different
depths for each plane if desired. So one could have a 12*3 bit per
pixel file, lossless or lossy. Note that I'm basing this
information on the November 2000 paper "The JPEG2000 Still Image
Coding System" by Christopoulos et al. and it is possible things
have changed.

ERI-JPEG does look very neat. I think if you had JPEG2000 you
could get something similar, though it wouldn't be as backward
compatible.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be backwards compatible at all. JPEG 2000 is not a JPEG file. While it uses similar theory it's not the same at all (except of course for the name - A marketing gimmick). Thus you need special drivers to use this format and that means fee's paid by the image processing program creator - Ain't gonna happen.

Dave
 
David Barkin said:
Dana Jacobsen said:
[...]
ERI-JPEG does look very neat. I think if you had JPEG2000 you
could get something similar, though it wouldn't be as backward
compatible.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be backwards compatible at all. JPEG 2000 is not a JPEG
file.
Click to expand...
I know that. I debated expanding on my comment but decided not to. With ERI-JPEG you can use almost any imaging utility and get a normal JPEG file. With a very, very limited set of utilities you could get the expanded file. Hence it is both far more and far less backward compatible. JPEG2000 is something completely different, so it has no backward compatibility but is more standard (at the moment -- if Kodak hasn't patented ERI-JPEG and others jump on the bandwagon then this will be very nice). I can get tools to view JPEG2000 images, I cannot get tools to view ERI-JPEG (they promise a free plug-in reader next March).
David Barkin said:
While it uses similar theory it's not the same at all (except
of course for the name - A marketing gimmick). Thus you need
special drivers to use this format and that means fee's paid by the
image processing program creator - Ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...
JPEG = Joint Photographic Experts Group. Both were standards designed by committee. It isn't a marketing gimmick any more than a Ford Taurus is a marketing gimick because it makes people think they're getting a Mustang or a GT40 (OK, so one glance at NASCAR and you realize they do want you to think that, but I digress again). I agree that it is really too bad the patent system is stifling innovation by disallowing use of things like this. I'm pretty sure the only similar theory going on is that of creating visually lossless images -- wavelets instead of DCT (a lot of debate went on about that), different entropy coding, support for multi-bit (1-16 instead of 8), rate control, lossless mode using the same algorithms, etc.
 
Hi Dana
I'm under the impression that JPEG 2000 was created by different people then JPEG. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not prepared to bet on this.

Dave
Dana Jacobsen said:
JPEG = Joint Photographic Experts Group. Both were standards
designed by committee. It isn't a marketing gimmick any more than
a Ford Taurus is a marketing gimick because it makes people think
they're getting a Mustang or a GT40 (OK, so one glance at NASCAR
and you realize they do want you to think that, but I digress
again). I agree that it is really too bad the patent system is
stifling innovation by disallowing use of things like this. I'm
pretty sure the only similar theory going on is that of creating
visually lossless images -- wavelets instead of DCT (a lot of
debate went on about that), different entropy coding, support for
multi-bit (1-16 instead of 8), rate control, lossless mode using
the same algorithms, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Three years later and still no JPEG2000. :-) Maybe I'll check back in 2 more years.
 
Patrick Martin said:
JPEG2000 is very processor-intensive, from what I've read. I would
bet that current camera processors are too slow to conduct the
jpeg2000 compression in a reasonable amount of time.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you are right about that and would guess that whenever JP2 is being implemented within cameras and other devices it will be done using dedicated coprocessors. In any case, it doesn't seem like the camera manufacturers will have a real incentive to incorporate JP2 until the format is supported on web browsers and servers.

--
Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/
 
Agree. While JPEG2000 has some advantages, it is not clear that they are good enough to displace the old JPG (or offset the disadvantages of JPEG2000).
tyoung said:
Patrick Martin said:
JPEG2000 is very processor-intensive, from what I've read. I would
bet that current camera processors are too slow to conduct the
jpeg2000 compression in a reasonable amount of time.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you are right about that and would guess that
whenever JP2 is being implemented within cameras and other devices
it will be done using dedicated coprocessors. In any case, it
doesn't seem like the camera manufacturers will have a real
incentive to incorporate JP2 until the format is supported on web
browsers and servers.

--
Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
 
I'd love to see j2000 become a standard in PS and other editing software. I'd be in hog heaven if I could shoot NEF or RAW in the camera and convert it to j2000 in post processing. It would save disk space and allow me to share better quality images over the web.

If we did that then camera manufacturers would catch up when hardware speeds made it feasable.

Also why don't camera manufacturers allow a two step process? I'd like a camera that would shoot raw and later on when I wasn't taking picutures I could tell the camera to process the on-card images to J2000. This way I clear memory for the next photosession but I'm not concerned about the speed to the compression algorithm(s).
Leon Wittwer said:
tyoung said:
Patrick Martin said:
JPEG2000 is very processor-intensive, from what I've read. I would
bet that current camera processors are too slow to conduct the
jpeg2000 compression in a reasonable amount of time.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you are right about that and would guess that
whenever JP2 is being implemented within cameras and other devices
it will be done using dedicated coprocessors. In any case, it
doesn't seem like the camera manufacturers will have a real
incentive to incorporate JP2 until the format is supported on web
browsers and servers.

--
Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--

Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300, 80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro
 
I'm pretty sure you can do this today with Adobe Photoshop CS.

-Z-
KenEis said:
If we did that then camera manufacturers would catch up when
hardware speeds made it feasable.

Also why don't camera manufacturers allow a two step process? I'd
like a camera that would shoot raw and later on when I wasn't
taking picutures I could tell the camera to process the on-card
images to J2000. This way I clear memory for the next photosession
but I'm not concerned about the speed to the compression
algorithm(s).
Leon Wittwer said:
tyoung said:
Patrick Martin said:
JPEG2000 is very processor-intensive, from what I've read. I would
bet that current camera processors are too slow to conduct the
jpeg2000 compression in a reasonable amount of time.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you are right about that and would guess that
whenever JP2 is being implemented within cameras and other devices
it will be done using dedicated coprocessors. In any case, it
doesn't seem like the camera manufacturers will have a real
incentive to incorporate JP2 until the format is supported on web
browsers and servers.

--
Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top