<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.Shkpostityyli18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-ligatures:none;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt 2.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="FI" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks Thomas,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I will suggest an edit to the GeoTIFF driver page for adding that information.<br>
If single row blocks are needed for some reason, it seems to be better to use the JPEGXL driver directly. It is fast and creates small output.<br>
<br>
gdal_translate -of jpegxl -co lossless=yes p4433h.tif p4433h.jxl<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">File size: 143 446 039<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Band 1 Block=12000x1<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">-Jukka Rahkonen-<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Lähettäjä:</b> thomas bonfort <thomas.bonfort@gmail.com> <br>
<b>Lähetetty:</b> torstai 24. lokakuuta 2024 16.18<br>
<b>Vastaanottaja:</b> Rahkonen Jukka <jukka.rahkonen@maanmittauslaitos.fi><br>
<b>Kopio:</b> 'gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org' (gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org) <gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org><br>
<b>Aihe:</b> Re: [gdal-dev] How to use JPEGXL in TIFF right?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Jukka,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, you should definitely be using tiled tiff with jxl. The actual tile size (256,512 or 1024) did not seem to make much difference in file size from what I have experienced, so you can choose that value depending on how you plan to use
the tifs later on.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In production use here, we use "-co BIGTIFF=YES -co TILED=YES -co BLOCKXSIZE=512 -co BLOCKYSIZE=512 -co COMPRESS=JXL -co JXL_EFFORT=3" . Setting the effort to 3 greatly reduces compression time while having very little effect on final image
size on 16bit satellite imagery.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">TB<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 1:00 PM Rahkonen Jukka via gdal-dev <<a href="mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org">gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">I made some tests about using JPEGXL (JXL) compression in GeoTIFF. I am interested in lossless compression. So far I have learned that stripes are not good,
but results from tiled TIFFs are promising.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The GeoTIFF driver manual has a warning about WEBP compression: “There is a significant time penalty for each tile/strip with lossless WebP compression, so you
may want to increase the BLOCKYSIZE value for strip layout.” I wonder if the same applies to JPEG XL compression as well. Without tiles this command was very slow</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">gdal_translate -of gtiff -co compress=jxl p4433h.tif p4433h_jxl.tif</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">This one was faster.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">gdal_translate -of gtiff -co tiled=yes -co compress=jxl p4433h.tif p4433h_jxl_tiled.tif</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Not only being slow but the compression with stripes does not really compress much. See the file sizes:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">With stripes: 359 211 087 p4433h_jxl.tif</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">With 256x256 tiles: 142 188 540 p4433h_jxl_tiled.tif</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Referense (LZW): 283 864 896 p4433h_lzw.tif</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">What might be the optimal block size for JXL-in-GeoTIFF when the aim is a good compression ratio and reasonable processing time?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-Jukka Rahkonen-</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
gdal-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>