Re: Lossless compression
Re: Lossless compression
- Subject: Re: Lossless compression
- From: Matt Beals <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:08:52 -0700
- Thread-topic: Lossless compression
I've converted almost all of my digital photo library to JPEG2000 for
archiving on a single DVD. Now rather than taking up about 6.5GB it's a
little over 4GB using high quality JPEG2000. I downloaded the plug-in for
PhotoShop and wrote a batch sequence, let it duplicate the image library in
a new location and away I went! Some of the photos did increase in size, but
I think that's more likely because the change in preferences to include a
thumbnail.
Mind you only PhotoShop can open them at this point, but since this is only
for an archive I can still use Portfolio or Cumulus to catalog them.
Hopefully someone will write a plug-in for InDesign CSx to place JPEG2000.
That would be great!
I've sent several images to people over email that would not have gone
normally because of file size restrictions. They just re-save them as TIFFs
at the other end. I have seen in other software testing that JPEG2000 with
maximum quality (lossless) is about the same as ZIP. In which case it's a
wash. But in my PDF based workflows JPEG2000 just isn't kosher.
Matt Beals
Consultant
Enfocus Certified Trainer, Markzware Recognized Trainer
(206) 618-2537 - cell
(720) 367-3869 - fax
mailto:email@hidden
Come visit me at:
http://www.mattbeals.com
http://www.actionlistexchange.net
http://www.mattbeals.com/blog/
Friends don't let friends write HTML emails
> From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
> Reply-To: <email@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:42:42 +1000
> To: <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Lossless compression
>
> Mark Rice wrote:
>
>> I have been waiting for years for JPEG2000 to become useful - for instance,
>> supported natively by browsers as JPEG and GIF are. It doesn't seem to be
>> happening.
>
> I'm not sure how useful JPEG2000 is. The lack of a widely available
> software library and it's patent encumbrance has slowed it's incorporation
> in a lot of software, and whether the high level of complexity justifies
> the gains is a good question. One technical evaluation I read found that
> while JPEG2000 gave better quality at very high (lossy) compression (very
> low quality), that at high quality settings, standard JPEG gave better
> results for a given file size. It would be interesting to verify this
> finding at some stage.
>
> Graeme Gill.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden