[gdal-dev] Long Term Prognosis for JPEG 2000

[Jeremy Palmer]

I would second COGs using WebP etc compressions. With internal tiling and
overviews it's great for easy hosting and access from cloud providers.
Also, support for Geotifff is great within desktop, serverside, and in
browser.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, 05:42 Javier Jimenez Shaw, <j1 at jimenezshaw.com> wrote:

> What about COG (Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF - https://www.cogeo.org/)?
> No file size limit (using BigTIFF), different encodings (LZW, deflate,
> JPEG, zstd, ...), direct access to any part of the image,
> overviews/pyramids for different levels of detail, well known format (TIFF).
> .___ ._ ..._ .. . ._.  .___ .. __ . _. . __..  ... .... ._ .__
> Entre dos pensamientos racionales
> hay infinitos pensamientos irracionales.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 19:59, Aaron Boxer <boxerab at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gdal-dev mailing list
>> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210330/1d992443/attachment.html>