JPEG 2000

[Michel]

It would be interesting in my opinion that the next version accepts the format JPEG 2000.

What do you think about ?

[boxig]

Michel

Long time ago I read about this format not so promising future. There are many better formats then the familiar JPG but they still can't replace the old JPG. But if Igor can do it - why not, it will be only for the better. I only wonder how many people are using this format.

Granot

[mannybr2003]

It would prove a better version if it could keep my hair from turning grey, and enhance my looks 2000 times.

[Lloegyr]

JPG2000

I did ask Ivor about this several months ago, and the answer is simply the liecnce fee that has to be paid to include it in PTE, is so expensive

Mike

Mersea Island

[Guest guru]

I agree with Granot, Michel. For long time we hear about this new "wonderful" format (better, formats - because there are several Jpeg 2000 codecs), but it is always "forthcoming".

I saw some very good demo images, but when few months ago I downloaded a demo compression software, I got very deceiving results.

[DimmY]

guru

I cannot agree with you! JPEG 2000 has real benefits as compared to "plain" JPEG. And all codecs I've seen work good (for example, from LuraTech or Adobe). The only drawback of JPEG 2000 (at least for me) is very high CPU power consumption to show/decompress images.

[nobeefstu]

I would have to aggree with Boxig and Guido on this JPEG 2000 file format.

Also :

The only drawback of JPEG 2000 (at least for me) is very high CPU power consumption to show/decompress images.

I dont use JPEG 2000 files ... but I did a simple file comparision/ information view in Irfan View just to get some inital idea. Here's the results using the same bmp when saved to :

JPEG2000 - Wavelet- loseless compression

file size = 139 kb

memory size = 556.64 KB (570000 Bytes)

* Load time = 539 milliseconds

-------------------------------------

JPG/JFIF - no compression

file size 122kb

memory size = 556.64 KB (570000 Bytes)

* Load time = 42 milliseconds

(* Load Time will be unique/ vary per a pc own individual capability)

Since PTE timing is so influenced and critical of file size and load times of its images used within the show ... initially by the above results JPEG2000 may promote more harm than good during runtime on various/different users pcs capabilities ?

[alrobin]

The only real application I can see for jpeg 2000 in combination with PTE is for those photographers who want to show their photos with the ultimate quality of resolution and colour (e.g. wedding photographers, for portfolio presentation), and who are not necessarily interested in synching to music, unless at very slow speeds.

The advantage of using PTE over the many other presentation programs in this type of application is the ability to add sound and fancy titles, and enjoy the fantastic high-quality transitions which PTE offers.