Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 8, 2011, 2:25 PM   #1
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default Adobe adds JPEG-XR support to Flash Player 11

This is interesting...

Adobe is going to support JPEG-XR in their Flash Player. See some of the new features in the Flash Player 11 RC on this page:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/f...flashplayer11/
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 9, 2011, 5:40 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

Okay Jim ...

what does it mean to "normal everyday users"

Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2011, 5:48 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That remains to be seen. ;-)

JPEG-XR offers better compression algorithms compared to JPEG. So, you can get higher quality with smaller file sizes. You also have the option of higher bit rates with JPEG-XR. See more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR

Now, JPEG 2000 offers many of the same benefits. See more about JPEG 2000 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

The main problem is that JPEG 2000 has not been widely adopted. But, then again, neither has JPEG-XR (for example, no camera manufacturers are using either one for storing images yet).

The interesting thing about Adobe adding support for JPEG-XR in Flash is that it could signal wider support of this format going forward. But, only time will tell.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2011, 7:54 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

So do we have to shoot in Jpeg-XR or Jpeg2000 in order to save in those formats? Or can we shoot in plain old jpeg and save in jpeg-xr or jpeg2000?
Would love a better compression format as that would make posting pictures here and other forums much easier.
__________________
Comments always welcome.

Last edited by Calicajun; Sep 13, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason: fat finger fix
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2011, 10:32 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calicajun View Post
So so we have to shoot in Jpeg-XR or Jpeg2000 in order to save in those formats? Or can we shoot in plain old jpeg and save in jpeg-xr or jpeg2000?
Would love a better compression format as that would make posting pictures here and other forums much easier.
As long as your image editor supports those formats, you could open a JPEG file and then save it as a JPEG-XR or JPEG 2000 file using "File>Save As" with many editors. Note that these formats use different extensions, too. For example, depending on whether or not you use more advanced formats, you may see JPEG 2000 using .jp2 or .jpx; and JPEG-XR using .hdp, .jxr or .wdp.

The main problem comes in when sharing those files with others. For example, most browsers won't support them by default and require add-ons or extensions to view them. Note the Application Support sections on these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_20...cation_support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR#Software_support

IOW, until these formats gain more widespread adoption, they're best used for personal storage with applications capable of supporting them. Also note that they're competing formats in a number of ways. For example, rather than embrace an existing format like JPEG 2000 and help it to become widely adopted, Microsoft decided to develop a competing format instead (HD Photo, which is now JPEG-XR). Personally, I would have preferred it if Microsoft would have supported JPEG 2000 instead, especially since a growing number of Open Source Image Editors can use it, including some of the applications that are popular with Linux users like digiKam

Hopefully, we'll see newer formats like these being adopted by more applications as time passes (which is the reason I found Adobe adding support for JPEG-XR to Flash interesting). What would really help is if camera manufacturers opted to allow saving images in these formats. But, so far, that hasn't occurred.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2011, 1:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

I think one reason for lack of interest in these formats has been that they open considerably slower than JPEG. I have tried the jpeg 2000, and find that there is a considerable delay in displaying the photos, even when not using the lossless setting (which is the reason I was trying it out). I assume this is due to the more complex decompression routines.
JPEG has the advantage of being universally supported, and the images open immediately. Unless JPEG-XR is considerably faster than JPEG 2000, I don't believe it will do any better.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2011, 1:27 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Apparently, JPEG 2000 is somewhat processor intensive, and I understand that even though the algorithms for JPEG-XR are simpler, it's somewhat processor intensive (as compared to JPEG), too.

But, keep in mind that processor power is continuing to increase at a very rapid rate now.

Also, the libraries used by programs can vary in efficiency (some may be much faster than others).

For example, here's one vendor of SDKs for image processing mentioning speed increases in a press release, with libraries enhanced for 64 bit, too.

http://www.accusoft.com/news_pictoolsrelease.htm

There are also Open Source projects creating better libraries for JPEG 2000 now. One project I've been keeping an eye on for a while is OpenJPEG. It uses a BSD License (which should make it more attractive for commercial projects). See more about it here:

http://www.openjpeg.org/

Of course, just to make things more interesting, Google is also developing a competing algorithm known as WebP. See more about it here:

http://code.google.com/speed/webp/
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2011, 2:22 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

It seems to me that this is Adobe trying to keep Flash relevant when HTML5 shows up.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:29 PM.