Just my two cents, I have very little personal use of JP2 although I’ve experimented with it in the past.
I personally have switched to using WEBP and have not run into any issues (other than wide support). I think the one place JP2 beats WEBP is that JP2 supports virtually unlimited image dimensions whereas WEBP is limited to 16383 x 16383. Then again, with GeoTIFF tiling, this is pretty much a non-issue. AVIF is also up and coming and superior to WEBP, so I’d imagine we’ll see support for that someday in GDAL as well. It supports larger image dimensions than WEBP (65536x65536) With that in mind, I personally would never choose to use JP2 at this point, but maybe there are other use-cases I’m unaware of. Marty From: gdal-dev <gdal-dev-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Aaron Boxer <boxe...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 10:22 AM To: gdal dev <gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> Subject: [gdal-dev] Long Term Prognosis for JPEG 2000 Hello There, I'm curious what folks here think about the future of JPEG 2000 in geospatial? I was having a little discussion about this over here: https://github.com/USGS-Astrogeology/ISIS3/issues/4237 To me, the features that made JP2 unique amongst the many codecs were: 0. royalty free 1. support for lossy and lossless compression in a single framework 2. support for TB images 3. fast on-the-fly random access into large images 4. decoder can determine what sort of progression it uses at decode time: resolution, quality, component or spatial. 5. precise rate control 6. error and re-compression resilience 7. JPIP protocol for progressive transmission over low-bandwidth networks The cons to JP2 were: 0. computational complexity i.e. dog slow 1. (until recently) buggy and slow OSS implementations 2. patent questions (largely resolved) 3. poor support from HW and browsers Do you think there is currently a viable alternative which covers enough of the advantages while lacking enough of the negatives that plague JP2 ? I'm curious because I have been devoting quite a bit of time to addressing some of those negatives, as discussed at length previously, The standard remains essential in digital cinema, medical imaging and in the archive community. But, those last two fields may also be ripe for change. In digital cinema, precise rate control is a must, so I think it is here to stay in the area. Thanks, Aaron
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
