[Matroska-devel] JPEG 2000 codec support

wm4 nfxjfg at googlemail.com
Fri Feb 13 16:14:38 CET 2015


On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:58:30 +0000
Antonin Descampe <antonin.descampe at uclouvain.be> wrote:

> 
> > Le 13 févr. 2015 à 12:06, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> a écrit :
> > 
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:37:29 +0000
> > Antonin Descampe <antonin.descampe at uclouvain.be> wrote:
> > 
> >> Dear Matroska developers ,
> >> 
> >> In the context of an EU-funded project called PREFORMA dealing with long-term preservation archives, we need to wrap JPEG 2000 frames using MKV. 
> > 
> > That sounds insane to me. Why did they choose JPEG 2000? It has bad
> > support in open source and AFAIR has nothing on h264 as far as
> > compression efficiency and quality goes.
> 
> Well, I have quite a different opinion.
> Concerning open-source support, there is the openjpeg library.
> Concerning compression efficiency and quality, JPEG 2000 and H264 are suited for completely different use cases. In the case of long-term preservation  archives where they need high bitrate (possibly lossless) compression, JPEG 2000 makes perfectly sense. That’s probably why well-known institutions like INA (french archives), British library, or Library of congress have opted for J2K for their assets. In addition to this, J2K is royalty-free, which is not the case of h264. 

OpenJPEG is slow (and the encoder is low quality, if that matters
here). JPEG 2000 still has a patent problem. JPEG 2000 in Matroska is
so obscure that you're probably the first person asking for it - how do
you expect the future to deal with these files?

Why not use ffv1? Lossless, lower size and faster than jpeg 2000,
broader support than jpeg 2000, no patents, supported in Matroska, and
apparently also used for archiving.

So, my question is: why not choose something that has good open source
support, is widely used, isn't horribly complex and obscure (think of
the future), and has better lossless compression with smaller size and
higher performance?

The reason that JPEG 2000 is pushed is likely not on technical merits,
but because big companies want to get some of that tax payer's money.

> > 
> >> I looked in mail archives and documentation, but it seems there is currently no such JPEG 2000 support within Matroska. 
> >> 
> >> My questions:
> >> * Is there any plan to include JPEG 2000 as one of the supported codec in Matroska ? If yes, what would be the timeframe ?
> >> * Is there any work already done in that direction ?
> >> * What would be the steps to follow to get this codec supported by Matroska ?
> >> 
> >> Many thanks in advance for any comment on that topic !
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> 
> >> Antonin
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Matroska-devel mailing list
> > Matroska-devel at lists.matroska.org
> > http://lists.matroska.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/matroska-devel
> > Read Matroska-Devel on GMane: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Matroska-devel mailing list
> Matroska-devel at lists.matroska.org
> http://lists.matroska.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/matroska-devel
> Read Matroska-Devel on GMane: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel


More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list