Comments on: JPEG XR Could Be Neat, but JPEG2000 is Still Neater

By: Complete Digital Information & Resources

Complete Digital Information & Resources — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:38:35 +0000

[...] Standard from Microsoft – PhotographyBLOG Microsoft HD Photo considered for standardization by JPEG JPEG XR Could Be Neat, but JPEG2000 is Still Neater in Disruptive … MSO – multiple system operator- an operator that owns multiple cable systems, for example, Time [...]

By: はてなブックマーク - JPEG XR Could Be Neat, but JPEG2000 is Still Neater | Disruptive Library Technology Jester

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:20:12 +0000

[...] JPEG XR Could Be Neat, but JPEG2000 is Still Neater | Disruptive Library Technology Jester dltj.org [...]

By: Nick Scott

Nick Scott — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:08:21 +0000

If you see the websute http://www.qualvisual.net, you might agree that JPEG2000 is indeed better than JPEG XR and Google WebP. Relatively, JPEG2000 is the best standard yet.

By: the Jester

the Jester — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:54:45 +0000

AlfredD — Thanks for posting your conclusions. Do you have a paper with your methodology posted anywhere? I’d be very interested in reading it.

By: AlfredD

AlfredD — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:23:22 +0000

“HD Photo delivers image quality that is comparable to JPEG-2000″

I did a comparative evaluation of both algorithms and, well it’s true that they’re comparable but it doesn’t mean they’re equal. For the same compression ratio, the artefacts introduced by JPEG-2000 are much less perceptible; they’re just more spread over the image. Whereas for HD Photo you get visible artefacts similar to JPEG, especially where you have high contrast, e.g. around printed text.

Unfortunately sometimes JPEG-2000 is just not an option; it’s a very costly algorithm that’s not well suited to the current generation of CPU’s. So my guess is that HD Photo will probably rise faster than JPEG-2000.

By: Discussion Forums @ Nikonians - Nikon and JPEG XR -- Upgrade or Replace?

Discussion Forums @ Nikonians - Nikon and JPEG XR -- Upgrade or Replace? — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:50:20 +0000

[...] an article comparing the two with some interesting observations.BillNikonian in [...]

By: New HD Photo Compression System Could Help Surgical Archiving » docinthemachine

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:08:26 +0000

[...] Peter Murray says: August 6th, 2007 at 9:45 am [...]

By: the jester

the jester — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:59:16 +0000

[quote comment="19913"]When it is time to *seriously* evaluate Windows HD Photo image quality and suitability claims – i.e. to move away from marketing statements about the utility of a format for a full range of archival etc., uses, there are useful models to follow.[/quote]

A very good point, MJ. It is doubtful that such studies will be undertaken if HD Photo’s domain is just the digital camera market. But if we consider HD Photo for archival purposes (a long shot?), then I agree.

[quote comment="19923"]When you cite Microsoft “HD Photo delivers image quality that is comparable to JPEG-2000 and more than twice the quality of JPEG.”. Maybe they mean what it says, the last mention of JPEG is maybe the plain JPEG and not the JPEG 2000 version. Could that be true?[/quote]

I believe you are right, Sam. The previous sentence claims HD Photo “delivers a lightweight, high performance algorithm with a small memory footprint that enables practical, in-device encoding and decoding” — but high performance and small memory footprint as compared to what?

By: sam

sam — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:31:33 +0000

When you cite Microsoft “HD Photo delivers image quality that is comparable to JPEG-2000 and more than twice the quality of JPEG.”. Maybe they mean what it says, the last mention of JPEG is maybe the plain JPEG and not the JPEG 2000 version. Could that be true?

Sam

By: dreamattack » links for 2007-08-05

dreamattack » links for 2007-08-05 — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:26:47 +0000

[...] JPEG XR Could Be Neat, but JPEG2000 is Still Neater in Disruptive Library Technology Jester (tags: photography digital technology) [...]