Google Summer of Code: Mozilla Projects

Posted Aug 23, 2007 21:59 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
In reply to: Google Summer of Code: Mozilla Projects by zooko
Parent article: Google Summer of Code: Mozilla Projects

Nobody's using jpeg2000 because it's full of patent landmines. Nobody wants to be the first to get sued. Since the quality isn't THAT much better anyway, there's really no good reason to change.

Standards writers, let jpeg2000 be a lesson! If you don't spend enough time worrying about patents, all your work might be for naught.

Personally, I think jpeg2000 is DOA forever. I look forward to when png2000 gets developed though!

jpeg2000

Posted Aug 24, 2007 7:59 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] (2 responses)

I think jpeg2000 is DOA forever.

Since the lifetime of patents is just 20 years, it might see some use after 2020...

jpeg2000

Posted Aug 26, 2007 0:31 UTC (Sun) by riddochc (guest, #43) [Link] (1 responses)

...Assuming someone won't come up with something better and patent-free in the meantime. There are probably *already* other formats better than jpeg2000, not including any developments in the next 13 years...

jpeg2000

Posted Aug 30, 2007 4:39 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link]

There are probably *already* other formats better than jpeg2000, not including any developments in the next 13 years...

Hell, in my experience, regular JPEG is better than JPEG-2000, both quality-wise and size-wise, and what I found online (real users, not researchers or graphics-tools vendors) completely agreed with that assessment.

Of course, it could be that the encoders for images in question just sucked massively, but it seems odd that all of them should be so bad--particularly when they're being held up as examples of JPEG-2000's quality. If you like grass that looks like split-pea soup, OK, maybe JP2K is just what you're looking for...but I prefer to see the blades.

I'd love to hear about exceptions, preferably involving publicly available images (the JPEG-2000 and lossless versions, at a minimum; I can create my own JPEG-1991 [or whatever] images at arbitrary quality settings).

Greg