Thread: A blazing-fast JPEG 2000

Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1 A blazing-fast JPEG 2000 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,808
    https://htj2k.com/

    The standard is royalty free and brings lightning fast image compression and decompression.

    Use it with your existing images and workflows: all the features of JPEG 2000 plus lossless transcoding. It is designed to be used by all the current JPEG 2000 family of users such as D-Cinema, video post-production, film preservation, medical, satellite, etc.

    Sound pretty good to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,195
    Great link Misha. The HTJ2K variant of JPEG 2000 has a lot going for it and could be a legit option for the RED ecosystem. One of the caveats of the HTJ2K topology is lost support for low res extractions from discrete data. In other words, you could't just fetch the 1/4 (or 1/2, 1/16th, etc) res chunk and ignore the rest like you can with the nested structure of J2K. Until recently, losing that feature would have made working with R3Ds too heavy for a lot of projects.
    These days it's a different equation. If, in fact, HTJ2K can achieve a 10x improvement in speed - leveraged with the latest silicon - we wouldn't need no stinking' extractions, proxy workflows, etc. I have no idea how many steps remain between what's in the white paper and actual wide implementation, but the potential is very interesting.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Michael Lindsay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    2,704
    Good link... thanks for the low res extraction info Blair...another example of one of the greatest strengths also being a weakness!

    Just in case anyone from Red reads this...I haven’t decoded a r3d file any less than full debayer 16bit for as long as I can remember....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    REDuser Sponsor Gunleik Groven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    13,399
    Great stuff.

    Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    It says here encoding 2 fps and decoding 3 fps for 4K 4:4:4 on Core I7 6700.


    https://github.com/aous72/OpenJPH
    Analog > Apollo wooden handgrip http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Primers - professional image transformation tools http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Vδth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    It says here encoding 2 fps and decoding 3 fps for 4K 4:4:4 on Core I7 6700.
    https://github.com/aous72/OpenJPH
    Presumably they are still optimizing.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,101
    What does this do for you that Cineform doesn’t?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,195
    The orthodoxy has always been that J2K variants require modest encoding effort, but pretty serious decoding muscle. AFAIK, Cineform balances that out a bit which makes decoding faster, at the expense of needing more resources at encode. Since encode happens in camera, it can be the enemy of small/light/power sipping/etc.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,808
    Quote Originally Posted by David Rasberry View Post
    What does this do for you that Cineform doesn’t?
    Cineform(RAW) is superior and that is the main reason commercial parties don't want to use it and stick to their own(developed) codecs, this might give them a way out and present us something better than they can offer us now (a bit like AV1 instead of HVEC, etc..).
    Reply With Quote  
     

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