Rocksolid Light - rec.photo.digital - JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15201&group=rec.photo.digital#15201

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=4Ue0iYjlZYXTBYNk3=OSRZHWonT5<]0T]M9@aW=nh=gZ4fb5@bE@D^X2ag1<^1n6R^SnY3>1C9?2]0M4\HL_1cV^D7=6nMk@;=_^gR94YZ4^7^8\_;>YTDTk[
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:57:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
From: alfred.molon@yahoo.com (Alfred Molon)
Subject: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1713650250 reader.netnews.com 19590 127.0.0.1:58621

by: Alfred Molon - Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:57 UTC

I've stitched together a panorama which is 45000 pixel wide.

Was thinking to use JPEG 2000 to save it, to get a smaller file size.

But Photoshop apparently only supports JPEG 2000 for up to 30K pixel
wide images:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/photoshop-does-not-allow-to-save-as-jpeg-2000/td-p/14567780

and if I resize to below 30K and save as JPEG 2000, I get a *.jpf file
(not a *.jp2 one).

Irfanview apparently is able to save as JPEG 2000 (*.jp2), but the file
size is big (only 30% smaller than an LZW-compressed TIF file).

But then, I can't find an image browser capable of reading JPEG 2000
image files. The ACDSee 2023 I'm using can't (I would have to contact
ACDSee and obtain a plugin, according to a forum post; 2024 apparently
can again read JPEG 2000).

Then, there is "JPEG XL" (*.jxl), but also here I can't find an image
browser capable of reading *.jxl files.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus micro 4/3 forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15202&group=rec.photo.digital#15202

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:47:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
Reply-To: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 06:47:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="efc5eb5bfd0e66082e1b34911f6929aa";
logging-data="146303"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+8xDCvV7cegCqezcmmhsHDypCvRl7ziU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K5GmL/YbuvlMeGJKlBqz4as6OG4=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

by: David Taylor - Sun, 21 Apr 2024 04:47 UTC

On 20/04/2024 22:57, Alfred Molon wrote:
> I've stitched together a panorama which is 45000 pixel wide.
>
> Was thinking to use JPEG 2000 to save it, to get a smaller file size.
>
> But Photoshop apparently only supports JPEG 2000 for up to 30K pixel
> wide images:
> https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/photoshop-does-not-allow-to-save-as-jpeg-2000/td-p/14567780
>
> and if I resize to below 30K and save as JPEG 2000, I get a *.jpf file
> (not a *.jp2 one).
>
> Irfanview apparently is able to save as JPEG 2000 (*.jp2), but the file
> size is big (only 30% smaller than an LZW-compressed TIF file).
>
> But then, I can't find an image browser capable of reading JPEG 2000
> image files. The ACDSee 2023 I'm using can't (I would have to contact
> ACDSee and obtain a plugin, according to a forum post; 2024 apparently
> can again read JPEG 2000).
>
> Then, there is "JPEG XL" (*.jxl), but also here I can't find an image
> browser capable of reading *.jxl files.

What about .WEBP or HEIC formats?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15203&group=rec.photo.digital#15203

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=R5F6^GZb9AJ@dH[gO7?^]LHWonT5<]0TMM9@aW=nh=gJ4fb5@bE@D^H2ag1<^1n6RN30[MRl3b_8OTH`A_l]?Y`JD7=6nMk@;=O^gR94YZ4^7N8\_;>YTDTkK
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:58:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me>
From: alfred.molon@yahoo.com (Alfred Molon)
In-Reply-To: <v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1713689929 reader.netnews.com 19604 127.0.0.1:57847

by: Alfred Molon - Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:58 UTC

Am 21.04.2024 um 06:47 schrieb David Taylor:

> What about .WEBP or HEIC formats?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format

Well, Photoshop only supports WebP until 16K (i.e. max image size 16384
x 16384).

It doesn't support HEIC.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus micro 4/3 forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<jrba2j9r2tqqnir2garqndofg5u0mvj4ea@4ax.com>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15204&group=rec.photo.digital#15204

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx16.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: croy@spam.invalid.net (croy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Reply-To: croy@pam.invalid.net
Message-ID: <jrba2j9r2tqqnir2garqndofg5u0mvj4ea@4ax.com>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 11
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:23:55 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1030

by: croy - Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:23 UTC

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:57:30 +0200, Alfred Molon <alfred.molon@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Then, there is "JPEG XL" (*.jxl), but also here I can't find an image
>browser capable of reading *.jxl files.

Irfanview?

--
croy

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<66255317$0$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15205&group=rec.photo.digital#15205

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=i=BRRZShQHiBNdMnRYA]khHWonT5<]0TmM9@aW=nh=gj4fb5@bE@D^h2ag1<^1n6Rn3RbVC\jZQ;gTH`A_l]?Y`jD7=6nMk@;=o^gR94YZ4^7n8\_;>YTDTkk
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:55:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<jrba2j9r2tqqnir2garqndofg5u0mvj4ea@4ax.com>
From: alfred.molon@yahoo.com (Alfred Molon)
In-Reply-To: <jrba2j9r2tqqnir2garqndofg5u0mvj4ea@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <66255317$0$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1713722136 reader.netnews.com 19604 127.0.0.1:45739

by: Alfred Molon - Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:55 UTC

Am 21.04.2024 um 17:23 schrieb croy:

> Irfanview?

Irfanview Thumbnails will open JXL files, but is there a way to open two
images at the same time and compare them side by side?

Then, in 100% view is there a way to move the image portion on the
screen by dragging it with the mouse? At the moment I'm only able to
move the image portion by acting on the scrollbars at the bottom and to
the right.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus micro 4/3 forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15206&group=rec.photo.digital#15206

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:56:45 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me> <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
Reply-To: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:56:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="efc5eb5bfd0e66082e1b34911f6929aa";
logging-data="146302"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q5Ycfmx57GzBdZNFLzZVWcLd8GcpVMz8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xFZAGYrTyEcIPMFZLUdSx2ow9Ik=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

by: David Taylor - Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:56 UTC

On 21/04/2024 09:58, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 21.04.2024 um 06:47 schrieb David Taylor:
>
>> What about .WEBP or HEIC formats?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format
> Well, Photoshop only supports WebP until 16K (i.e. max image size 16384
> x 16384).
>
> It doesn't support HEIC.
> -- Alfred Molon

Sounds like time to move to a more modern program then!

For some of the Windows programs you can get DLLs which extend basic support
for the HEIC format set - perhaps for Photoshop as well?

For low cost image processing (and not a subscription) you might look at Serif
Affinity, but I don't know its limits:

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15207&group=rec.photo.digital#15207

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=gD<Nof1M^eagV]co_f[N`lHWonT5<]0TmM9@aW=nh=gj4fb5@bE@D^h2ag1<^1n6RnmWDjSP6Z1TlI`DbBl>3j?ih9Rf4[Db5Abgg_AQ0Bb5nh5;T>0j>i^lg
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me> <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me>
From: alfred.molon@yahoo.com (Alfred Molon)
In-Reply-To: <v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1713731003 reader.netnews.com 19605 127.0.0.1:40999
X-Received-Bytes: 2053

by: Alfred Molon - Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:23 UTC

Am 21.04.2024 um 19:56 schrieb David Taylor:

> Sounds like time to move to a more modern program then!
>
> For some of the Windows programs you can get DLLs which extend basic
> support for the HEIC format set - perhaps for Photoshop as well?
>
> For low cost image processing (and not a subscription) you might look at
> Serif Affinity, but I don't know its limits:
>
> https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/

I tried several RAW processing SW a while ago and they were all far
inferior to Photoshop. That was a couple of years ago, and while it's
possible that other RAW processing SW have improved in the meantime, I
wouldn't change RAW processing SW just to be able to use HEIC files.

In any case, Photoshop is the de facto industry standard. If it doesn't
support HEIC, something is wrong with HEIC. Seems to be an Apple format,
perhaps that is the reason.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus micro 4/3 forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v04mfu$obd6$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15208&group=rec.photo.digital#15208

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 04:45:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <v04mfu$obd6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me> <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me> <662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
Reply-To: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 05:45:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="51d431052019d405e29d06acff6643ff";
logging-data="798118"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xC38LaW+8vqFODGFayPbws0P7kl/nLew="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:klcDyXHXR4Fss6Td8ZLpwXvzVnQ=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

by: David Taylor - Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:45 UTC

On 21/04/2024 21:23, Alfred Molon wrote:
> I tried several RAW processing SW a while ago and they were all far
> inferior to Photoshop. That was a couple of years ago, and while it's
> possible that other RAW processing SW have improved in the meantime, I
> wouldn't change RAW processing SW just to be able to use HEIC files.
>
> In any case, Photoshop is the de facto industry standard. If it doesn't
> support HEIC, something is wrong with HEIC. Seems to be an Apple format,
> perhaps that is the reason.
> -- Alfred Molon

I was suggesting a one-off trial of the Affinity software, just in case. An
addition to your toolset, not a replacement.

Some might argue that Apple is also an "industry standard", so perhaps
Photoshop should be accommodating it! Are there any signs it might be updating
for HEIC?

Good luck, anyway.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<66268b6a$14$19593$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15209&group=rec.photo.digital#15209

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news-out.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=^MHGTk=[^<]mX=_jP@VG9QHWonT5<]0T]M9@aW=nh=gZ4fb5@bE@D^X2ag1<^1n6R^I5gCM]\:1WQ_ihl[K7@;UTD7=6nMk@;=_^gR94YZ4^7^8\_;>YTDTk[
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:08:10 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me> <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me> <662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <v04mfu$obd6$1@dont-email.me>
From: alfred.molon@yahoo.com (Alfred Molon)
In-Reply-To: <v04mfu$obd6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <66268b6a$14$19593$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1713802090 reader.netnews.com 19593 127.0.0.1:60573

by: Alfred Molon - Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:08 UTC

Am 22.04.2024 um 05:45 schrieb David Taylor:

> Some might argue that Apple is also an "industry standard", so perhaps
> Photoshop should be accommodating it! Are there any signs it might be
> updating for HEIC?

How does HEIC compare to JPEG 2000 and JPEG XL for what concerns
compression ratio and speed?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus micro 4/3 forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v066ie$obd7$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15210&group=rec.photo.digital#15210

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:25:34 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <v066ie$obd7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me> <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me> <662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v04mfu$obd6$1@dont-email.me> <66268b6a$14$19593$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
Reply-To: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 19:25:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="51d431052019d405e29d06acff6643ff";
logging-data="798119"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18v0DBWJ+L5jKQs2z2nCRopasMQWr5m5CM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v8xV+s5dcGDLDOQM+1lYCqSQjPM=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <66268b6a$14$19593$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

by: David Taylor - Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:25 UTC

On 22/04/2024 17:08, Alfred Molon wrote:
> How does HEIC compare to JPEG 2000 and JPEG XL for what concerns
> compression ratio and speed?
> -- Alfred Molon

It produces smaller images than JPEG, but I haven't compared the speed. My own
use has just been viewing, or converting to JPEG for other programs. I hope
the link I gave earlier may have some useful details.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v07puh$1griq$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15211&group=rec.photo.digital#15211

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fred@fred-smith.co.uk (Abandoned Trolley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:02:25 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <v07puh$1griq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me> <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me> <662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v04mfu$obd6$1@dont-email.me> <66268b6a$14$19593$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v066ie$obd7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:02:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8a4e9039a24ac9c7966f188511838739";
logging-data="1601114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190n2RaUnNrjs+yZvZlOcKnt8TU2Wgq4flpuBo2vcQ/AA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jBLyt9G56VMlhvGZVbBOa/FRuL0=
In-Reply-To: <v066ie$obd7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

by: Abandoned Trolley - Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:02 UTC

>
> It produces smaller images than JPEG, but I haven't compared the speed.
> My own use has just been viewing, or converting to JPEG for other
> programs. I hope the link I gave earlier may have some useful details.

"smaller images" ? - is there a standard compression ratio for jpegs then ?

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v080r9$1em6v$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15212&group=rec.photo.digital#15212

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:00:09 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <v080r9$1em6v$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v025o4$4erv$1@dont-email.me> <6624d549$5$19604$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v03k0t$4eru$1@dont-email.me> <662575bb$5$19605$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v04mfu$obd6$1@dont-email.me> <66268b6a$14$19593$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v066ie$obd7$1@dont-email.me> <v07puh$1griq$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:00:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="055045539cc4e6a7ccada19e11cec93c";
logging-data="1530079"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZqXUaraz5PC9ymFEcAbHVUszpttRDWH0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z7RGOAhvx/J7YK3iXjGppoHmp1A=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v07puh$1griq$1@dont-email.me>

by: David Taylor - Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:00 UTC

On 23/04/2024 09:02, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>> It produces smaller images than JPEG, but I haven't compared the speed.
>> My own use has just been viewing, or converting to JPEG for other
>> programs. I hope the link I gave earlier may have some useful details.
>
> "smaller images" ? - is there a standard compression ratio for jpegs then ?

That was meant to be "smaller files"!, of course.

JPEG offers a choice of how much compression is used and what chroma
subsampling is used is used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v09ilo$1tn0g$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15213&group=rec.photo.digital#15213

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dohduhdah@yahoo.com (sobriquet)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 02:10:32 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <v09ilo$1tn0g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 02:10:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65363f0686caddfe989c047c0abf8739";
logging-data="2022416"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VmPSF6Ucr7QCO0MOSkf9NB3vd4tnwjNw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mcFqiYjQMZHpetXoesNmkKCc/hE=
In-Reply-To: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
Content-Language: nl

by: sobriquet - Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:10 UTC

Op 20/04/2024 om 23:57 schreef Alfred Molon:
> I've stitched together a panorama which is 45000 pixel wide.
>
> Was thinking to use JPEG 2000 to save it, to get a smaller file size.
>
> But Photoshop apparently only supports JPEG 2000 for up to 30K pixel
> wide images:
> https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/photoshop-does-not-allow-to-save-as-jpeg-2000/td-p/14567780
>
> and if I resize to below 30K and save as JPEG 2000, I get a *.jpf file
> (not a *.jp2 one).
>
> Irfanview apparently is able to save as JPEG 2000 (*.jp2), but the file
> size is big (only 30% smaller than an LZW-compressed TIF file).
>
> But then, I can't find an image browser capable of reading JPEG 2000
> image files. The ACDSee 2023 I'm using can't (I would have to contact
> ACDSee and obtain a plugin, according to a forum post; 2024 apparently
> can again read JPEG 2000).
>
> Then, there is "JPEG XL" (*.jxl), but also here I can't find an image
> browser capable of reading *.jxl files.

Did you try photopea?

https://www.photopea.com/

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<662962de$1$19601$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15214&group=rec.photo.digital#15214

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!news-out.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!eu1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=K2V?D?N[<g_>gCnG5fMoN\HWonT5<]0T]M9@aW=nh=gZ4fb5@bE@D^X2ag1<^1n6R^>Hm?^nfFX0XGfBMFGGUhD_D7=6nMk@;=_^gR94YZ4^7^8\_;>YTDTk[
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 21:51:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v09ilo$1tn0g$1@dont-email.me>
From: alfred.molon@yahoo.com (Alfred Molon)
In-Reply-To: <v09ilo$1tn0g$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <662962de$1$19601$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1713988318 reader.netnews.com 19601 127.0.0.1:43931

by: Alfred Molon - Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:51 UTC

Am 24.04.2024 um 02:10 schrieb sobriquet:

> Did you try photopea?
>
> https://www.photopea.com/

No, first time I hear about this. Seems to be a browser based image editor.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus micro 4/3 forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

<v0c6vp$2jtv4$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/tech/article-flat.php?id=15215&group=rec.photo.digital#15215

copy link Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dohduhdah@yahoo.com (sobriquet)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 02:09:29 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <v0c6vp$2jtv4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <66243a4a$2$19590$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v09ilo$1tn0g$1@dont-email.me> <662962de$1$19601$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 02:09:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b96f9448ea2ffb3a6e8cb953c66f4b49";
logging-data="2750436"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VzR7PTkokdfzOcjDILOSAr2uvBKtSNoY="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mVyEafHoU+DQEaEnIL6bDAdl80A=
Content-Language: nl, en-US
In-Reply-To: <662962de$1$19601$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>

by: sobriquet - Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:09 UTC

Op 24/04/2024 om 21:51 schreef Alfred Molon:
> Am 24.04.2024 um 02:10 schrieb sobriquet:
>
>> Did you try photopea?
>>
>> https://www.photopea.com/
>
> No, first time I hear about this. Seems to be a browser based image editor.

Yeah, basically a free photoshop clone (though there are pesky ads).

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

tech / rec.photo.digital / JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images

Subject	Author
JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	Alfred Molon
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	David Taylor
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	Alfred Molon
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	David Taylor
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	Alfred Molon
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	David Taylor
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	Alfred Molon
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	David Taylor
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	Abandoned Trolley
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	David Taylor
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	croy
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	Alfred Molon
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	sobriquet
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	Alfred Molon
Re: JPEG 2000 or JPEG XL for large images	sobriquet