Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: File Format-

Expand Messages
  • Ken Warner
    Helmut, Yes, JJ2000 Reference Implementation works perfectly. Wouldn t expect otherwise from a Reference Implementation (RI). I dug through it for about 3-4
    Message 1 of 97 , Jun 26, 2008
      Helmut,

      Yes, JJ2000 Reference Implementation works perfectly. Wouldn't expect
      otherwise from a Reference Implementation (RI).

      I dug through it for about 3-4 weeks trying to strip it down to
      a bare decoder. There is a lot of code that is necessary for an RI
      but could be eliminated for a pure Java decoder. But it's really
      messy code. I threw my hands up when I came across circular
      dependencies in the class hierarchy. Yes I know, circular dependencies
      in Java is a hard thing to do but they did it somehow.

      I still think that with the right (financial) incentive, someone could
      make a decent all Java j2c/j2k decoder that would be much less than
      100kb. I don't think I have the strength.

      Interesting thought, higher color depth for JPEG. Would it still be
      JPEG even JPEG2000? You are the first one to even mention the idea
      but it's not a bad idea. 8 bit colors are getting long in the tooth
      given the current generation of hardware.

      Ken

      Helmut Dersch wrote:
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
      >
      >>I tried to strip down the JJ2000 reference implementation to get
      >>to an all Java JPEG2000 decoder that I could package with my applet.
      >>The best I could do was a 250kb applet. JJ2000 was half logging
      >>and error detection because it was a reference implementation.
      >>
      >>I didn't have the strength to cut through all the crap in it...
      >>
      >>What decoder did you use?
      >
      >
      > At the time when I published the mentioned PTViewer extension this (ie
      > the reference implementation) was the only available JPEG2000-java
      > solution. It works quite well, and I think you can't get much lower
      > than 250kb of code even for an optimized version. It is possible to
      > use other decoders with PTViewer, but I have not monitored the
      > developments in this field.
      >
      > As to the (my) motivation of using JPEG2000: Getting a 10 or maybe
      > 20% better compression level is not enough to warrant the hassle of
      > switching to an entirely new image format. What was more interesting
      > to me about JPEG2000 was the theoretical possibility of using larger
      > bitdepths than 8 bits. As far as I remember, this option, which is
      > mentioned in the specs, has not (yet?) found its way into actual
      > encoders/decoders; maybe this has changed.
      >
      > Helmut Dersch
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Fulvio Senore
      Many thanks to all those who took the time to test the pano. I suppose than now I have some useful info. Loading in Windows computers is usually very fast, so
      Message 97 of 97 , Jul 2, 2008
        Many thanks to all those who took the time to test the pano.
        I suppose than now I have some useful info.

        Loading in Windows computers is usually very fast, so I suppose that the
        slow loading is caused by the internet connection. Unless java on Mac is
        hopeless, of course.

        At the moment there is no point in having a larger pano, since the
        current implementation of java has not enough memory available to store
        a larger image.

        I hope that I will be able to prepare something in the next months.

        Fulvio Senore


        Uri Cogan ha scritto:
        > Fulvio Senore wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >> So I am curious. Here is an old sample of a rather large java pano:
        >> http://www.fsoft.it/panorama/PTViewer/PTVTest/Prova5000.html
        >> <http://www.fsoft.it/panorama/PTViewer/PTVTest/Prova5000.html>
        >> May anybody test it with a Mac, just to report if it is fast enough?
        >> I am confident that, on modern computers, the speed could be easily
        >> doubled.
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > It would be interesting to see a full-screen Java pano. Your sample Took
        > 25 seconds to load fully - this probably depends on the connection speed
        > rather than on Java itself. panning and zooming were quite smooth.
        >
        > Mac Pro Intel dual processor 2 Ghz, Mac OS 10.5.3, Safari browser.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.