Although my day-to-day work takes me farther away from working with digital collections in general and JPEG2000 specifically, I still have a Google News search set up looking for hits on JPEG2000 topics. An entry appeared yesterday that gives some interesting insight into how motion JPEG2000 is being used in broadcast video transmission: “HBO Opens T-VIPS Video Gateways: Norweigan Vendor Helps Premium Net Ship Content Coast to Coast”
The article describes how HBO is using video gateways based on the JPEG2000 standard “to transport high-definition programming from its New York City studios to the HBO Communications Center.” The device, a TVG430 HD JPEG2000, encodes and decodes HDTV signals in motion JPEG2000 for transmission over gigabit ethernet. (Take a look at the data sheet [PDF] for all of the fine details about the product.) The article also describes some of the operational advantages and disadvantages of real-time motion JPEG2000 transmission:
For HBO and other clients, JPEG2000 has proven to have a number of advantages over MPEG formats for video-signal transport, Dolvik said. MPEG signals that are repeatedly encoded and decoded have much poorer image quality than JPEG2000 signals, and JPEG2000 does a significantly better job of error correction. In addition, the latency for JPEG2000 signals is about 120 milliseconds, compared with as much as two to four seconds for MPEG.A downside to JPEG2000 is that it requires significantly more bandwidth than MPEG. This isn’t a major problem for sending content over IP networks, in which bandwidth has become much less expensive, but it is a significant issue for “the last mile” connection into homes where bandwidth is often extremely limited.
Very interesting to read, even if it doesn’t have a direct impact on libraries and other cultural heritage institutions. It does show, though, that JPEG2000 is gaining market share and mind share in other fields.
![[Creative Commons Logo]](/wp-content/themes/local/cc-by-na-sa-30-us-88x31.png){kind=small}
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
1 Comment
A reassuring interpretation of this article is that JPEG 2000 is solidifying its in those arenas where quality and cost considerations must simultaneously be satisfied.
The backend/Last Mile comments about content delivery relates directly to concerns that because browser support is withheld by the major operating system manufacturer, archival operations that use JPEG 2000 are problematic. It is possible to have tunable, high-quality archive content and from that to deliver quality/format imagery on demand. This is consistent with the OAIS model.
What we also see here is that the engineering community (programmers, hardware manufacturers) is taking JEPG 2000 to heart and that format sustainability – for them – will not be a problem.
Results of a recent U. Conn survey indicate that local, in-depth knowledge about JPEG 2000 capabilities within *our* community is still lacking. Perhaps a community-sponsored training/education program for Cultural Heritage hardcore techies in JPEG 2000 application programming is justified now?
Post a Comment