LuRaWave Gallery

Ira Cohen · Jan 9, 2000

Images look great.
Downloaded in a snap....

Will be looking at more pictures instead of waiting,waiting, waiting waitng,and waiting.
Ira

Steven Nash · Jan 9, 2000

Im sorry but I have to dis-agree.

The only difference I can see is that the areas of low detail are reduced to lower color depths and made more blockey where as high detail areas are not compressed atall.

The bottom line is, does it produce better images at the same file size.

Downlad speed, Im on a T3. Most images donload in

Russ

Ira said:
Images look great.
Downloaded in a snap....
Will be looking at more pictures instead of waiting,waiting, waiting
waitng,and waiting.
Ira

Phil Askey · Jan 9, 2000

Russell said:
Im sorry but I have to dis-agree.

The only difference I can see is that the areas of low detail are reduced
to lower color depths and made more blockey where as high detail areas
are not compressed atall.

The bottom line is, does it produce better images at the same file size.

Downlad speed, Im on a T3. Most images donload in
progressive download is not an issue.

Most of my readers are not.

Frank J. Sinkavich · Jan 10, 2000

Phil Askey said:
Russell said:

Im sorry but I have to dis-agree.

The only difference I can see is that the areas of low detail are reduced
to lower color depths and made more blockey where as high detail areas
are not compressed atall.

The bottom line is, does it produce better images at the same file size.

Downlad speed, Im on a T3. Most images donload in
progressive download is not an issue.

Click to expand...

Most of my readers are not.

Installed the plug-in (no problem) and looked at two photos. Using a 56k modem with a Mac G3/266 the downloads are sharp but take a long time to complete.

Frank

Phil Askey · Jan 10, 2000

Frank J. Sinkavich said:
Installed the plug-in (no problem) and looked at two photos. Using a 56k
modem with a Mac G3/266 the downloads are sharp but take a long time to
complete.

They're very similar in byte size (around 180KB) to the JPEG's I normally post. Try visiting one normal gallery, view a few images, then come back to the lurawave gallery and browse..

HowieB · Jan 10, 2000

I'm running NT4.0 with IE5. With every image I load using LuraWave, I see an additional approximately 40 megabytes used in my task manager, until I get a "low virtual memory" warning (I have 256 megabytes + an additional 650 megabytes of virtual memory). I can watch it get eaten up with every LuraWave image I load. Anyone else see this kind of behavior? Seems the only way to clear it is to exit IE.
-
Howie

Ira said:
Images look great.
Downloaded in a snap....
Will be looking at more pictures instead of waiting,waiting, waiting
waitng,and waiting.
Ira

Rui Prior11774 · Jan 10, 2000

Phil Askey said:
They're very similar in byte size (around 180KB) to the JPEG's I normally
post. Try visiting one normal gallery, view a few images, then come back
to the lurawave gallery and browse..

Phil, I have one complaint: LWF files are fine for the downsized version, as if it was JPEG, it would have double compression anyway. But please make the full sized JPEG available too. Yesterday I was looking at the new Sony 505 gallery and could only get the 800x600 images. This doesn't allow me to evaluate the CCD de-bayerizing algorithm. For example, at 800x600, images from the Casio QV-2000UX are fine, whereas at 1600x1200 they show the worst case of jaggies I've ever seen on a 2MP digicam.

Phil Askey · Jan 10, 2000

Rui Prior said:
new Sony 505 gallery and could only get the 800x600 images. This doesn't
allow me to evaluate the CCD de-bayerizing algorithm. For example, at
800x600, images from the Casio QV-2000UX are fine, whereas at 1600x1200
they show the worst case of jaggies I've ever seen on a 2MP digicam.

That was a deliberate decision by me because the images I shot were personal and I preferred to keep the originals. If there is a particular image you want then please email me.

There's a full Sony DSC-F505 gallery (30 images) with originals:

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sonydscf505_samples/

Steven Nash · Jan 10, 2000

I have one other small point to make.

How can you asses the new file format when the imgaes you are looking at have previously been stored in JPEG compression, by the 505 ?

If the New format is better, which im not saying it is not, then its like looking through a dirty windows to see if another is clean.

Would a gallery with pics taken by a Pro 70 in CCD RAW then compressed be a much more scientific approach.

Russ

Phil Askey said:
Rui Prior said:

new Sony 505 gallery and could only get the 800x600 images. This doesn't
allow me to evaluate the CCD de-bayerizing algorithm. For example, at
800x600, images from the Casio QV-2000UX are fine, whereas at 1600x1200
they show the worst case of jaggies I've ever seen on a 2MP digicam.

Click to expand...

That was a deliberate decision by me because the images I shot were
personal and I preferred to keep the originals. If there is a particular
image you want then please email me.

There's a full Sony DSC-F505 gallery (30 images) with originals:

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sonydscf505_samples/

misha · Jan 10, 2000

Russell said:
I have one other small point to make.

How can you asses the new file format when the imgaes you are looking at
have previously been stored in JPEG compression, by the 505 ?

If the New format is better, which im not saying it is not, then its like
looking through a dirty windows to see if another is clean.

Would a gallery with pics taken by a Pro 70 in CCD RAW then compressed be
a much more scientific approach.

Russ

What will people compare them to? I don't think those that don't own the Canon software can read the CCD RAW files.

Misha

Fred Rothenberg · Jan 10, 2000

Ira said:
Images look great.
Downloaded in a snap....
Will be looking at more pictures instead of waiting,waiting, waiting
waitng,and waiting.
Ira

I agree. I used to get much older waiting to see stuff and now it's a lot quicker. Putting all the technical issues aside, isn't life wonderful?

Fred

Nicholas Newell · Jan 10, 2000

Great site Phil -

I second Rui's request. I have a cable modem, so
the download time has never been a problem,
although I appreciate the difficulty for others.
The initial Lurawave images look good, but the
bigger images show jaggies...
Please keep posting the full size originals too, so
we can evaluate them.

Many thanks.

Nicholas Newell

Ira Cohen · Jan 10, 2000

Russell said:
Im sorry but I have to dis-agree.

The only difference I can see is that the areas of low detail are reduced
to lower color depths and made more blockey where as high detail areas
are not compressed atall.

The bottom line is, does it produce better images at the same file size.

Downlad speed, Im on a T3. Most images donload in
progressive download is not an issue.

Russ

Braggart

Ira

Member said:
Ira said:

Images look great.
Downloaded in a snap....
Will be looking at more pictures instead of waiting,waiting, waiting
waitng,and waiting.
Ira

Click to expand...

Steven Nash · Jan 10, 2000

Sorry, perhaps I wasnt too clear.

I mean...take an uncompressed image then use compression on that image, eg, JPG. IF you have a jpg then convert it to another format then It can be no better than the JPG. as it was a jpg to start with.

Russ

michael said:
Russell said:

I have one other small point to make.

How can you asses the new file format when the imgaes you are looking at
have previously been stored in JPEG compression, by the 505 ?

If the New format is better, which im not saying it is not, then its like
looking through a dirty windows to see if another is clean.

Would a gallery with pics taken by a Pro 70 in CCD RAW then compressed be
a much more scientific approach.

Russ

Click to expand...

What will people compare them to? I don't think those that don't own the
Canon software can read the CCD RAW files.

Misha

Frank J. Sinkavich · Jan 11, 2000

Phil Askey said:
Frank J. Sinkavich said:

Installed the plug-in (no problem) and looked at two photos. Using a 56k
modem with a Mac G3/266 the downloads are sharp but take a long time to
complete.

Click to expand...

They're very similar in byte size (around 180KB) to the JPEG's I normally
post. Try visiting one normal gallery, view a few images, then come back
to the lurawave gallery and browse..

Phil,

I took your advise and looked at the samples in the C-2000 gallery (just bought a C-2020) and the samples appeared faster compared to the lurawave format. IMHO, the normal gallery is better since I can see the photo download to the browser. The lurawave samples give me a black screen and nothing to see for a long time (just watch the navigator indicator (xx% completed) and then the photo partially appears and scrolling down is very jumpy. In addition, when viewing the lurawave photos (twice) both times Communicator (4.7) crashed. May be a problem with the plug-in. I have reinstalled it twice with no difference in performance.

Frank

Guenther · Jan 11, 2000

To Howie:

That is true. I use the same system (NT4,IE5) and I assume
that this plugin allocates memory without freeing it.

But this is not a principally problem of JPEG2000.

Guenther ( http://www.bindl.de )

LuraTech · Jan 11, 2000

Dear dprview.com users,

thanks a lot for all your comments about our LuraWave image compression! Also thanks to Mr. Phil Askey for creating this beautiful LWF gallery!

I'd like to reply to some of the articles you wrote:

Howie Bernstein, Guenther Bindl: Yes you're right! LuraWave takes a lot of memory for decompression. About 4x the uncompressed image size. But this memory is only needed for a very short time, after decompression it is freed again.

Russell: LuraWave is not designed for people using a T3 connection. It is only useful for people with modems up to 56k (like most people have). Otherwise decompression takes longer than downloading.

Frank J. Sinkavich: I already told Phil that he diplays the LWF images in too good quality. The smaller the file size is, the greater the advantage of LuraWave against JPEG. If the LWF is stored losslessly on the server and displayed e.g. only 1:50 in the browser (yes, that's possible), the user also has the opportunity to continue loading up to the full quality from the LWF image's context menu.

Nicholas Newell, Rui Prior: In contrast to JPEG, LuraWave is capable of saving losslessly. So with this algorithm you have both JPEG and TIFF-LZW capabilities in one. The only difference: LWF's are smaller. Unfortunately, Phil didn't put the lossless images on the server yet.

For more info visit us at
http://www.luratech.com/

or contact us by e-mail:
[email protected] (technical support)
[email protected] (licensing and other info)

More links particularly interesting for webmasters (including a free compressor!):
http://luratech.com/products/demos/plugintest/test_e.html
http://luratech.com/products/demos/lurawave/lecture/index_e.html
http://luratech.com/products/demos/lurawave/frame1_e.html
http://luratech.com/products/download/fs_smart_e.html

Ira said:
Images look great.
Downloaded in a snap....
Will be looking at more pictures instead of waiting,waiting, waiting
waitng,and waiting.
Ira

Search

LuRaWave Gallery

Ira Cohen

Guest

Steven Nash

Guest

Phil Askey

Guest

Frank J. Sinkavich

Guest

Phil Askey

Guest

HowieB

Leading Member

Rui Prior11774

Member

Phil Askey

Guest

Steven Nash

Guest

misha

Guest

Fred Rothenberg

Leading Member

Nicholas Newell

Guest

Ira Cohen

Guest

Steven Nash

Guest

Frank J. Sinkavich

Guest

Guenther

Guest

LuraTech

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts