[gdal-dev] Long Term Prognosis for JPEG 2000

[Aaron Boxer]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:12 PM Marty J. Sullivan <
marty.sullivan at 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-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Aaron
> Boxer <boxerab at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, March 29, 2021 at 10:22 AM
> *To: *gdal dev <gdal-dev at 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 at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20210329/86fc1ee7/attachment.html>