Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: JPEG2000 > Paul

> From: Julian Robinson
> I also checked pixel variations between JPEG and J2K for various
> compressions, and found it hard to draw any conclusions - I wasn't bowled
> over by the improvement of J2K over ordinary jpeg, and the speed
> difference is astoundingly in favour of jpeg.

I may do some further experimenting, but at the 10:1 compression I've been
using, I got somewhat better results, numerically. But as I said, the main
reason I like JPEG2000 is that it handles the greater bit depth.

My guess is that JPEG algorithms have been boiled down to carefully hand
coded SIMD routines (i.e., using MMX on a Pentium II or higher), but no
one's gotten around to doing that yet for JPEG2000. On the other hand, it's
possible that JPEG2000 doesn't lend itself to that sort of programming, and
will never be as fast. We'll see.


Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.