On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:12 PM Marty J. Sullivan < marty.sulli...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> 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. > 16383 x 16383 sounds a bit limited. Even if you use tiling, if your compression is lossy then you will see artifacts at the tile boundaries. > > > 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. > The problem with larger dimensions in WebP is the impossibility of decoding a sub window in the image. You are forced to do a complete decode each time you view it. > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
