Possible Changes: Your Opinion Please
For people using the lossless versions of releases and reviews: I am currently investigating the possibility of replacing the use of PNG with the JPEG2000 lossless format, with the possibility of cutting down on processing times and maybe filesizes. For this to happen, however, a number of conditions need to be met. Firstly, reader approval. Secondly, a demonstrated acceleration in processing. Thirdly, filesize reductions. The second and third conditions will be tested by me later, so this post is for the first point. I understand that JPEG2000 is not a widely used format, but most programs seem to support them. Additionally, the lossless versions are intended for people who actually work with the pictures (like make wallpapers, or stitch, or play with colours), and these people usually have the expertise to work with the new format. Anyway, comment below expressing your like or dislike of this possibility -- remember, staying silent now = giving up the right to bitch later.
16 comments16 Comments so far
Leave a reply
NOTE: Comment moderation is enabled: Your comment may not appear until approved.
Personally I like PNG and probably prefer PNG since I’ve never used JPEG2000 before, I think. Are there any programs you would recommend to view JPEG2000 pictures in if the switch is made?
Wikipedia:
“The PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format is still more space-efficient in the case of images with many pixels of the same color, and supports special compression features that JPEG 2000 does not.”
Png is good at compressing gradients, which is what most of this style of artwork is. Also if you want better png compression, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNGOUT.
VCitric: Indeed, but with scans, the colours are not actually that smooth or uniform when you get down to details. I already use PNGOUT, with its 10-12 compression passes. Even multi-threading to process 6 files at once, it’s pretty slow.
Unless you are seeing fairly notable space savings moving from PNG to JPEG2000 I’d stick with the more common format.
If you are going to look at other format then at least compare HD Photo. I don’t know a ton about it, but its natively supported in most Microsoft stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR
Also I don’t know what res you scan at, but high quality JPEG2000/HD Photo would be preferable to shrunk lossless scans.
Well to be honest I hadn’t even commonly heard of the Jpeg2000 format before so no idea how easy to use and view it is.
I would stick with PNG. It’s a free standard and is widely supported. I don’t think I’ve ever downloaded a jpeg2000 image.
I’m using a Mac, so I would rather not have JPEG XR.
From my test so far on a big PSD in which I removed a crease ( several layer ), the JPG 2000 is faster ( comparing to Photoshop’s PNG compression, other software are faster ), and the file size is smaller, which is explainable since scans are closer to photo with noise, and for which JPG and JPG 2000 were created for.
It’s longer though when opening, in an image viewer, or Photoshop which requires an additional plugin. If the lossless archive are for people who are going to edit picture, then it’s a fair assessment that JPG 2000 could be used, but there is also the group of people who look and upload the PNG. I’m in both group, so JPG 2000 would be the same for editing, but as for uploading, it would need to be converted.
It’s an easy decision if you consider the compression time and the public you are aiming for this pack. As an editor, I would say JPG2000, fast for you, same process for us, as a viewer/uploader, PNG, and for both in the end it’s PNG though I understand your concern about compression time since it’s also annoying for me.
I think you will take the bestdecision. Still, I would prefer PNGs
I say you do maybe one or two small releases with JPG 2000 and PNG for comparison as well as for some users to test and see if they like/can view the alternative format. From there we can choose which one the users prefer. Vote democratic style XD
i still would prefer PNG, but i love you and if a change will make life easier for you then i don’t mind
To be honest, I don’t know much about JPG2000. I read up links included in the comments and whatnot, but I myself cannot tell the difference yet. Judging by what others have already said though, it may be wise to stick to PNG.
That being said, I agree with PhuzyBuny: for possibly two-three SMALL releases (to make it easier on you), upload archives in both versions and have the visitors vote on which one they like the best. I would say try to go with releases that are different in style, that way you can show the differences more easily (as it seems color differences/gradation patterns/etc will affect what comes out).
TBH, as long as it’s still lossless I don’t mind what format it’s saved as. I’ve come across plenty of JPEG2000 images in the past. All the image viewers and editors I use can read JPEG2000 so the point is rather moot for me.
I prefer PNG too,, :)
PNG ALL THE WAY!!! :)
mainly coz it’s free and as other have said… more common. ultimately… it’s up to you icie! ^^
Still like the PNGs as well :O
yup, PNG is the way to go.