Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

When will JPEG2000 (JPF) support be added


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

The later is something only full blown imaging software like PS, Corel, or PhotoLine etc. can deal with, which have a wider build-in color management support implemented.

The Corel applications I've tried so far can't handle JPF files in LAB 16 colorspace, either.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

Most of such Viewer/Conversion apps don't have build-in higher color management profile capabilities, thus they will show up opened images on screen as default sRGB color space colors, they don't make use of or deal with the orig 48 Bit per pixel LAB colors. The later is something only full blown imaging software like PS, Corel, or PhotoLine etc. can deal with, which have a wider build-in color management support implemented. - Thus plain image converters might have their difficulties to convert from LAB color space here in an adequate manner.

All in all the file format with LAB you once choosed now gives you the problem for a painless conversion here, since it's nothing which is common widely supported by usual apps & tools.

 

As I mentioned in a prior reply, I save my files in LAB because it mimics the color range the human eye perceives.
It also produces better print color than straight RGB because LAB uses a 3 dimensional color model versus 2D RGB.
I have used this color mode for over 17 years without problems as far as printing.
The current problem I have is strictly compatibility issues with the JPF format I saved some older files in.
I originally chose JPF strictly to save computer drive space because JPF supported LAB 16 bit yet was half the size of TIFF.
I obviously don't use the JPF format anymore.
But because I have a lot of older files in the JPF format that is why I am searching for a way to convert them to TIFF but preserve the original LAB 16 bit they were first saved in.

Since these older files are mostly old film photo scans I will simply have to rescan them if all else fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I ask PhotoLine to save a LAB image as JPG2000 it warns that LAB space is not supported for that file format. Outside of Photoshop I'd be surprised if any other image editor will allow for this. Irfanview and PhotoLine have no issues opening these files, but the channels contain L, a, and b data rather than RGB data. I am certain other software which supports jp2 files will load them as expected, but with the Lab channels into RGB channels.

It has nothing to do with colour profiles in this case. I think Photoshop embeds a parameter that tells it to interpret the channels as Lab instead of RGB.

The solution is simple: if your image editor supports the loading the original jp2 LAB files and also maintains 16bpc, then it is a simple case of copying the correct channels into a Lab image. Which is what I did in PhotoLine and the action I uploaded earlier.

There is no need to rescan unless you require a higher resolution. Just use PhotoLine and the action, or any other image editor that allows for this channel move. Or install a virtual machine with a free Windows image (available at the MS site), and install the trial of Photoshop CS5 to do the conversion for you to LAB tiff. Which is a properly supported format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Medical Officer Bones said:

When I ask PhotoLine to save a LAB image as JPG2000 it warns that LAB space is not supported for that file format. Outside of Photoshop I'd be surprised if any other image editor will allow for this. Irfanview and PhotoLine have no issues opening these files, but the channels contain L, a, and b data rather than RGB data. I am certain other software which supports jp2 files will load them as expected, but with the Lab channels into RGB channels.

It has nothing to do with colour profiles in this case. I think Photoshop embeds a parameter that tells it to interpret the channels as Lab instead of RGB.

The solution is simple: if your image editor supports the loading the original jp2 LAB files and also maintains 16bpc, then it is a simple case of copying the correct channels into a Lab image. Which is what I did in PhotoLine and the action I uploaded earlier.

There is no need to rescan unless you require a higher resolution. Just use PhotoLine and the action, or any other image editor that allows for this channel move. Or install a virtual machine with a free Windows image (available at the MS site), and install the trial of Photoshop CS5 to do the conversion for you to LAB tiff. Which is a properly supported format.

I agree that CS5 probably encoded the file in a way that allowed for the Lab color space.
But since a lot of the files are opening in a lower resolution of only 900 pixels I have no choice but to rescan those.
I have to have at least 2000 pixels at 300 PPI for printing purposes.
Rescanning is not hard, just takes time.
I will just have to save them in TIFF this time.

I cannot use CS5 at all on my current Mac.
It is not compatible with the High Sierra OSX.
I actually had CS5 on a CD that I bought back in 2012.
It worked fine on my older Mac, but when I had to upgrade to a newer Mac in 2017 the CS5 simply would not work.
It kept crashing and giving me errors.
At that time I contacted Adobe support about this and they told me that CS5 was never tested on Mac OSX newer than El Capitan.
They suggested I switch to Creative Cloud, but I told them I am not renting a program.
And Windows based programs will not even install on my Mac, so those would be a waste of time.

That is when I searched for an alternative to Photoshop and found Affinity Photo.
APh works just great with all of my old files except those in the JPF format.

Like I said, it will be simpler to just rescan those old photos. I have a high resolution scanner so it will not be a problem. It will just take time.

Thanks for the effort, but looks like rescanning is the only sure option of getting the resolution I need for those old photos.

Perhaps APh will add the support for JPF in the future as the program gains popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

I cannot use CS5 at all on my current Mac.
It is not compatible with the High Sierra OSX.
I actually had CS5 on a CD that I bought back in 2012.
It worked fine on my older Mac, but when I had to upgrade to a newer Mac in 2017 the CS5 simply would not work.
It kept crashing and giving me errors.

Weird, PS CS5 it did work fine for me in High Sierra and also initially in Mojave. Some later Mojave update rendered it unstable, now it sometimes work fine, sometimes quits soon after a few commands. Other CS5 work (almost) fine, and ditto CS6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fixx said:

Weird, PS CS5 it did work fine for me in High Sierra and also initially in Mojave. Some later Mojave update rendered it unstable, now it sometimes work fine, sometimes quits soon after a few commands. Other CS5 work (almost) fine, and ditto CS6.

It could have been the type of Mac you had as well.
CS5 worked without a problem on my old MacBook, which was running Lion (10.7) at the time.
It was a very old Mac, about 9 years old. It had 16 gigs of RAM. I know that the more RAM you have the more stable memory intensive programs will run.
But then one day I turned it on and had the white screen of death, which meant the graphics processor had decided to take a crap.
I took it in for repair but they could not fix it because Apple only supports its products for 7 years, which means no more parts for that particular MacBook.
I was then forced to buy a used MacBook Pro Retina that was refurbished by a company called MacMedia. It came with the High Sierra OSX.
I used TimeMachine to transfer all of my old programs and files that were backed up from the old Mac.
That was when the problems started.
Many older programs that ran perfectly on my old Mac were suddenly disabled on the newer one.
When I first initiated PSCS5 on the new Mac it gave me a weird error code.
I called MacMedia about it and they said it was because I used TimeMachine to transfer it.
Whenever any Adobe products are installed on a Mac they attach themselves to the processor of that machine to prevent illegal copying of the program.
The technician told me to remove it using AppCleaner and then reinstall the program from the original CD.
I did that and the program did activate normally. It also opened files without a problem.
The problem started when I tried to save those files in another format.
For example, when I opened a Nikon NEF file and tried to save it as a TIFF the program crashed and an error report popped up on the screen.
The MacMedia tech told me to contact Adobe because he did not know why it was doing that.
That was when Adobe told me that CS5 was never tested on High Sierra and said there was no guarantee it would work on anything newer than El Capitan.
The Adobe tech told me to get the newer CS6 with Creative Cloud, but unlike CS5 I would have to pay a $9.99 per month subscription fee and the program required an internet connection in order to verify that I paid the bill before allowing me to use it.
I told the tech that I will never rent a program. I only use stand alone programs because I sometimes travel to remote areas for my photography work and don't have access to internet.
The tech told me that is what is being sold now by Adobe for professional photo editing.
That was when I gave up on Adobe Photoshop and found Affinity Photo.
APh works just as good as CS5. I just wish it had JPF support.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former times PS/PSE JPEG 2000 handling ...

mom_silence.jpg.1e83a887e4360cce4f1957119ab70c78.jpg

Nowadays one can find for PS some free third party plugins like this J2K one from fnord, but that then will need a corresponding PS version too. - So OSX Preview or rescanning might be needed in your case.

☛ Affinity Designer 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Publisher 1.10.8 ◆ OSX El Capitan
☛ Affinity V2.3 apps ◆ MacOS Sonoma 14.2 ◆ iPad OS 17.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

Former times PS/PSE JPEG 2000 handling ...

mom_silence.jpg.1e83a887e4360cce4f1957119ab70c78.jpg

Nowadays one can find for PS some free third party plugins like this J2K one from fnord, but that then will need a corresponding PS version too. - So OSX Preview or rescanning might be needed in your case.

It's really too bad they are abandoning JPEG2000.
It supported multiple color spaces and 16 bit color depth.
The primary advantage was that it was half the size of a TIFF yet supported the same colors and bit depth of a TIFF.
Fortunately I can rescan the old photo prints that were saved in JPF.
I also have other photos saved in JPF that were created from Nikon NEF files.
But fortunately I still have those NEF files and it is a simple matter to reprocess them into TIFF using APh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

So OSX Preview or rescanning might be needed in your case.

It has already been determined in this topic that Preview.app opens .jpf files -- but only as 8 bits per channel RGB files, & apparently often only at smaller pixel dimensions (lower resolution) than the original PS versions. It might be that Preview.app is opening a preview image embedded in the .jpf file.

It looks like the "Moment of Silence" quote (which appears to be pulled from a variety of "Missing Manual" books for PSE by Barbara Brundage) may have made the same mistake I did, assuming that .jpf was just another extension for the same JPEG 2000 file format as .jp2 or .jpk, which it is not: from this page there is this (emphasis added):

Quote

 

Part 2, Extensions

Part 2 defines codestream and file format extensions including: multi-component transformations; more flexible wavelet tranform kernels and decomposition structures; alternate quantization schemes; and non-linear point transforms. The Part 2 JPX file format extends the Part 1 JP2 file format to allow: more comprehensive color space descriptions and HDR sample representations; multiple codestreams; composition, cropping, geometric transforms; rich animations; descriptive metadata; and a rich metadata set for photographic imagery.

 

I am still looking for anything that definitively indicates if JPX officially support the LAB color space or not. Because "more comprehensive color space descriptions" could simply mean more comprehensive ICC profile info than for JP2 (which the jpeg.org page also says supports color space information), I am not sure if this is some weird Photoshop-only thing or what.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I am still looking for anything that definitively indicates if JPX officially support the LAB color space or not. Because "more comprehensive color space descriptions" could simply mean more comprehensive ICC profile info than for JP2 (which the jpeg.org page also says supports color space information), I am not sure if this is some weird Photoshop-only thing or what.

The former Adobe times PS plugins probbly looked like this (scroll down there on page and see the JPF panel settings) ...

The fnordware download page for J2K (v2.7 - 31 May 2012) tells ...

Quote

Also known as JP2, JPEG 2000 uses wavelet compression as opposed to the DCT compression used in standard JPEG. The end result is better image quality in a smaller file. JP2 also includes mandatory metadata such as information about an image's color space.
...

... the tools option panel offers some settable format and profile settings. - However never tried out that one, so can't tell if it offers the same as Adobe's former plugin.

☛ Affinity Designer 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Publisher 1.10.8 ◆ OSX El Capitan
☛ Affinity V2.3 apps ◆ MacOS Sonoma 14.2 ◆ iPad OS 17.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

I also have other photos saved in JPF that were created from Nikon NEF files.
But fortunately I still have those NEF files and it is a simple matter to reprocess them into TIFF using APh.

Well if you still have the NEFs then it's a no brainer, though personally I would preferaly use Capture NX-D for NEF processing which offers overall much better image quality.

2 hours ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

Fortunately I can rescan the old photo prints that were saved in JPF.

If you maybe used a Nikon slide scanner with Nikonscan (in case you had slides too), you can also save as NEFs from that one for image archiving. That's what I did in the past when digitizing all important analog slides I had. For paper prints some good scanner hardware with Silverfast etc. should also give more or less valuable results.

☛ Affinity Designer 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Publisher 1.10.8 ◆ OSX El Capitan
☛ Affinity V2.3 apps ◆ MacOS Sonoma 14.2 ◆ iPad OS 17.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, v_kyr said:

The former Adobe times PS plugins probbly looked like this (scroll down there on page and see the JPF panel settings) ...

OK, on that page the text does say, "Grayscale, RGB, CMYK, and Lab are the only modes supported by the JPEG 2000 format," but it doesn't say anything that I can find about the Part 2 extension that the .jpf extension is supposed to indicate that bit depth is specified in floating point notation, which allows significantly greater that 16 bpc color depth. In fact, it only mentions 16 bit color or greyscale, the sample .jpf file is according to the header "RGB8*" (whatever that is supposed to mean), & there is nothing I can find on the rest of the page that indicates .jpf is a separate "Save as..." option with additional options to use FP notation.

The J2K download page seems to say about the same thing as the Part 1 spec that the jpeg.org page does, & says it "features" 16 bit compression. From other sources, it appears that the ".j2k" extension is supposed to be used for "experimental" purposes, apparently for files that do not (or did not) meet the ISO Part 1 standard in some way or another. The plugin does show a JPX format option with a "Float encoding" checkbox, & a "Custom bit depth" option, but unless it is in some other part of the plugin window, there is nothing to choose which color mode will be used. The second sample shown on the Samples page seems to make no distinction among the 4 JPEG 2000 extensions shown, which can't be right, & the sample file itself opens as a .jp2 version.

Somewhere in all of this I guess there must be a definitive answer about PS support vs. everything else, but to me it is just a muddled mess. :(

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Well if you still have the NEFs then it's a no brainer, though personally I would preferaly use Capture NX-D for NEF processing which offers overall much better image quality.

If you maybe used a Nikon slide scanner with Nikonscan (in case you had slides too), you can also save as NEFs from that one for image archiving. That's what I did in the past when digitizing all important analog slides I had. For paper prints some good scanner hardware with Silverfast etc. should also give more or less valuable results.

I tried the Nikon software. Didn't like it because it did not have the HDR tools I needed for my layering work.

As far as scanning, I already have an Epson V-300 flatbed scanner capable of scanning slides and 35mm film negatives. But most of the scans I need to do are just regular photo prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

I tried the Nikon software. Didn't like it because it did not have the HDR tools I needed for my layering work.

Capture NX-D also supports plugins like for example NIK HDR Effex Pro etc. (see here for example), so you can do HDR with appropriate tools too from that one.

☛ Affinity Designer 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Publisher 1.10.8 ◆ OSX El Capitan
☛ Affinity V2.3 apps ◆ MacOS Sonoma 14.2 ◆ iPad OS 17.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, R C-R said:

...
Somewhere in all of this I guess there must be a definitive answer about PS support vs. everything else, but to me it is just a muddled mess. 

There isn't that much actual information about it, related things I saw where mostly from older sources, reference implementations and books ...

 

Quote

 

Images in JPX files may have one of the following colour spaces:

  • A predefined colour space, chosen from a list of enumerated colour spaces. (Two of these are actually families of spaces and parameters are included.)
  • A restricted ICC profile. These are the only sorts of ICC profiles that are allowed in JP2 files.
  • An input ICC profile of any sort defined by ICC-1.
  • A vendor-defined colour space.

More than one colour space may be specified for an image, with each space being tagged with a precedence and an approximation value that indicates how well it represents the preferred colour space. In addition, the image’s colour space may serve as the foundation for a palette of colours that are selected using samples coming from the image’s data channels: the equivalent of an Indexed colour space in PDF.

There are other features in the JPX format beyond describing a simple image. These include provisions for describing layering and giving instructions on composition, specifying simple animation, and including generic XML metadata (along with JPEG2000-specific schemas for such data). Relevant metadata should be replicated in the image dictionary’s Metadata stream in XMP format (see 14.3.2, "Metadata Streams").

When using the JPXDecodefilter with image XObjects, the following changes to and constraints on some entries in the image dictionary shall apply (see 8.9.5, "Image Dictionaries" for details on these entries):

  • Width and Height shall match the corresponding width and height values in the JPEG2000 data.
  • ColorSpace shall be optional since JPEG2000 data contain colour space specifications. If present, it shall determine how the image samples are interpreted, and the colour space specifications in the JPEG2000 data shall be ignored. The number of colour channels in the JPEG2000 data shall match the number of components in the colour space; a conforming writer shall ensure that the samples are consistent with the colour space used.
  • Any colour space other than Pattern may be specified. If an Indexed colour space is used, it shall be subject to the PDF limit of 256 colours. If the colour space does not match one of JPX’s enumerated colour spaces (for example, if it has two colour components or more than four), it should be specified as a vendor colour space in the JPX data.
  • If ColorSpace is not present in the image dictionary, the colour space information in the JPEG2000 data shall be used. A JPEG2000 image within a PDF shall have one of: the baseline JPX colorspaces; or enumerated colorspace 19 (CIEJab) or enumerated colorspace 12 (CMYK); or at least one ICC profile that is valid within PDF. Conforming PDF readers shall support the JPX baseline set of enumerated colour spaces; they shall also be responsible for dealing with the interaction between the colour spaces and the bit depth of samples.
  • If multiple colour space specifications are given in the JPEG2000 data, a conforming reader should attempt to use the one with the highest precedence and best approximation value. If the colour space is given by an unsupported ICC profile, the next lower colour space, in terms of precedence and approximation value, shall be used. If no supported colour space is found, the colour space used shall be DeviceGray, DeviceRGB, or DeviceCMYK, depending on the whether the number of channels in the JPEG2000 data is 1,3, or 4.

 

 

☛ Affinity Designer 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Publisher 1.10.8 ◆ OSX El Capitan
☛ Affinity V2.3 apps ◆ MacOS Sonoma 14.2 ◆ iPad OS 17.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Capture NX-D also supports plugins like for example NIK HDR Effex Pro etc. (see here for example), so you can do HDR with appropriate tools too from that one.

To be honest with you I never liked the Nikon software.
I tried to use it in place of photoshop but it was very limited for the type so work I do.
Affinity Photo does everything I need it to do in regards to processing NEF files.
The only thing APh does not do is open those JPF files I talked about.
So, unless the Nikon software can open and reprocess JPF files I don't really have a use for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

...Affinity Photo does everything I need it to do in regards to processing NEF files.

IMO it's at best very mediocre as a RAW processor, especially here the Serif Engine in contrast to Apples RAW Engine for producing images out of RAWs. It's quality wise by far not on par with NX-D, also not with C1, LR or DxO in terms of RAW processing and generated output quality. Further APh's engine doesn't know anything about and can't make any use out of Nikon camera specific feature settings and in NEFs supplied vendor metadata values, like Active D-Lighting, Picture Control and individual lens data informations etc. It's WB handling is also pretty bad in contrast to other RAW converter solutions. And since it doesn't offer any sidecar file usage, it also doesn't have any reusable memory of setup or previously defined and performed RAW processing settings. - JPF is no by Nikon cams used and supported file format, so their cam related RAW software doesn't deal with that format at all, in a similar fashion as other cam vendor related software. Thus you will find JPF support nowadays mostly only in dedicated image manipulation software (then probably also only as third party codec plugins) or in device specific medical software etc.

☛ Affinity Designer 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.10.8 ◆ Affinity Publisher 1.10.8 ◆ OSX El Capitan
☛ Affinity V2.3 apps ◆ MacOS Sonoma 14.2 ◆ iPad OS 17.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

IMO it's at best very mediocre as a RAW processor, especially here the Serif Engine in contrast to Apples RAW Engine for producing images out of RAWs. It's quality wise by far not on par with NX-D, also not with C1, LR or DxO in terms of RAW processing and generated output quality. Further APh's engine doesn't know anything about and can't make any use out of Nikon camera specific feature settings and in NEFs supplied vendor metadata values, like Active D-Lighting, Picture Control and individual lens data informations etc. It's WB handling is also pretty bad in contrast to other RAW converter solutions. And since it doesn't offer any sidecar file usage, it also doesn't have any reusable memory of setup or previously defined and performed RAW processing settings. - JPF is no by Nikon cams used and supported file format, so their cam related RAW software doesn't deal with that format at all, in a similar fashion as other cam vendor related software. Thus you will find JPF support nowadays mostly only in dedicated image manipulation software (then probably also only as third party codec plugins) or in device specific medical software etc.

I cannot respond to your critique of Aph vs NX-D.
I only know that APh works to my satisfaction and I have tried the Nikon program in the past and did not like the way it operated.

Here is a stock photo agency I sell some of my photography through. They are pretty picky when it comes to quality.
All of the images I have here were processed from NEF files using APh.
These images would not have been accepted by this agency if there were any quality problems with the way they were processed.

https://www.robertharding.com/photographers/stevenlove/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

It's really too bad they are abandoning JPEG2000.
It supported multiple color spaces and 16 bit color depth.
The primary advantage was that it was half the size of a TIFF yet supported the same colors and bit depth of a TIFF.
Fortunately I can rescan the old photo prints that were saved in JPF.
I also have other photos saved in JPF that were created from Nikon NEF files.
But fortunately I still have those NEF files and it is a simple matter to reprocess them into TIFF using APh.

Today I tested the various TIFF variants and compared with JP2. In all cases I saved lossless when given a choice.

Test file: 3664x2744px LAB 16bpc, original NRW raw file size: 15.6MB

  • PSD: 57.5MB
  • TIFF unpacked: 57.5MB
  • TIFF LZW packed: 19.4MB
  • TIFF ZIP packed: 17.3MB
  • JP2 Lossless (Photoshop CS5): 35.5MB
  • TIFF ZIP (Photoshop CS5): 29.1MB

Anyway, it seems TIFF ZIP packed performs best. Much better than JP2 in Photoshop CS5. JP2 does not perform better at all in my tests here. Unless lossy JP2 files are used, which defeats the purpose of archiving the image data as-is, of course.

One more thing to consider: JP2 files are very slow to process compared to TIFF ZIP and other file formats. Compression as well as decompression take much longer.

In short: much longer processing times and larger files seemingly aren't favouring the use of JPEG2000. Even in good old Photoshop CS5 the JP2 file comes out bulkier than the TIFF ZIP version produced in Affinity Photo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Medical Officer Bones said:

Today I tested the various TIFF variants and compared with JP2. In all cases I saved lossless when given a choice.

Test file: 3664x2744px LAB 16bpc, original NRW raw file size: 15.6MB

  • PSD: 57.5MB
  • TIFF unpacked: 57.5MB
  • TIFF LZW packed: 19.4MB
  • TIFF ZIP packed: 17.3MB
  • JP2 Lossless (Photoshop CS5): 35.5MB
  • TIFF ZIP (Photoshop CS5): 29.1MB

Anyway, it seems TIFF ZIP packed performs best. Much better than JP2 in Photoshop CS5. JP2 does not perform better at all in my tests here. Unless lossy JP2 files are used, which defeats the purpose of archiving the image data as-is, of course.

One more thing to consider: JP2 files are very slow to process compared to TIFF ZIP and other file formats. Compression as well as decompression take much longer.

In short: much longer processing times and larger files seemingly aren't favouring the use of JPEG2000. Even in good old Photoshop CS5 the JP2 file comes out bulkier than the TIFF ZIP version produced in Affinity Photo.

 

Good morning. There must be a 7 to 8 hour difference between where we live because your reply is shown to be 7 hours old.

Anyway, I considered using one of the TIFF compression algorithms but I was not sure if those would be supported on other programs, so I left my TIFF files uncompressed after I started having problems with CS5 and JPF.
When I was saving files in JPEG2000 I do recall CS5 taking quite a while to save them, so you're right about the slower processing with JP2.
And you, as well as other commenters, keep referring to JP2.
All of my JPEG2000 files have the extension JPF.
According to a list of variants for JPEG2000 the extension of JPF means my files were saved in the JPEG2000 (Part2) variant.
The Part 2 variant simply might not be supported anymore except by the Preview App and another Utility App in my Mac called ColorSync.

I did discover that the Preview App can export the JPF files as OpenXLR in 32 bit.
The only side effect is that the colors are more saturated and lighter, which can be readjusted if necessary.
I have experimented with OpenXLR files before and they are good for HDR work.

What I will probably do is rescan the old film photo prints to get the resolution I need.
Older NEF files can simply be reprocessed and saved at TIFF.
I will only need to use the Preview App for JPF files that do not have a corresponding NEF backup or a photo print that I can scan.

I will be leaving shortly to do some photography work at the Grand Canyon, so I will be gone all day.
Just letting you and anyone else know so that you know why I am not replying for the rest of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

The Part 2 variant simply might not be supported anymore except by the Preview App and another Utility App in my Mac called ColorSync.

Are you sure either one really supports this or just converts the files to the .jp2  standard at 8 bps & RGB?

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Are you sure either one really supports this or just converts the files to the .jp2  standard at 8 bps & RGB?

When I open the JPF file with Preview App it does display it normally.
When I go to export it gives me the options of JPEG, JPEG2000, TIFF, PNG, and OpenXLR.
Exporting to JPG, JP2, TIFF, or PNG converts it to 8 bit RGB.
But when I export to OpenXLR the result is RGB 32 bit.
The OpenXLR file that gets created does have all of the original colors that were in the display, but they are more saturated and lighter.
The heavier saturation and lightness can be adjusted if necessary.
After readjusting the color saturation and lightness I then convert the OpenXLR file into TIFF 16 bit LAB.

Like I mentioned in another reply I will only do this for JPF files that do not have photo print for me to rescan or an NEF version that can be reprocessed.

Got to leave in 10 minutes to do some photography work so if you reply to this I will check for your reply either late this evening or tomorrow morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DeepDesertPhoto said:

But when I export to OpenXLR the result is RGB 32 bit.

OK, but are you sure all those extra bits actually are used to match the original's 32 bits worth of color variations, or maybe just truncated or rounded to the nearest 8 bit values?

Also, what is the maximum bits per channel your scanner supports without interpolation? Does the color quality of the original photos in their presumably currently aged state really justify even 16 bit depths?

All I am suggesting is it might be worth running some tests before deciding what the best way to go really is.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.