Max Moritz Sievers wrote:
is there a plan to support JPEG2000?

In case you do not know yet what JPEG2000 is, here is an article from ZDnet:

JPEG 2000 to give the Web a new image

Next version of graphics file format might even dazzle the pros.
By Luisa Simone,
April 22, 1999 10:51 AM PT

<snipped marketing fluff stuff...>
More important, it abandons DCT compression in favor of wavelet compression.
Wavelets are mathematical expressions that describe an image in a continuous
stream, and so avoid the blocky artifacts associated with DCT compression.
Interesting. The article contains a self referential example. This appears to be the wavelet concept stripped of all  but the lowest frequency components. But perhaps the chosen basis is wanting; the concept seems blurred by signal cross-talk.
This ability to uncompress multiple resolutions on the fly can also pay big
dividends in print production workflows. Imagine a single small file, easy to
store and transport, that when partially uncompressed is suitable for
relatively low-resolution screen display and local proofs, but when fully
decompressed contains enough resolution for final output.
But for the file to be small, high frequency components in the data set have already been stripped, and these will not be available for further "uncompressing"

Representing a data set using any number of possible wavelet bases does not magically fit 1.2  gigabytes of data onto 1.44 megabyte floppy diskettes. Using a wavelet basis to separate data into spatially and spectrally localized "windows" is not inherently a compression technique. It is related to compression techniques in important (but tangential) ways in that using suitable wavelet bases simply allows us to reorder a data set so that information can be readily extracted in terms of how rapidly it it changes relative to other information in the data set. If we present such reordered information as a serial stream, in low-to-high frequency order, this gives rise to compression tactics where one can "cut-off" the data flow at a point where the upstream data are at higher resolutions than what the downstream agents (printers, whatever) can readily reproduce. If we're particularly smart about choosing the correct basis (somewhat dependent on the nature of the data set), then the cut-off point can be at a juncture where most of the data are still upstream, and the downstream agents have reproduced something with fidelity no better than what they are capable of producing anyway.

<snipped marketing fluff stuff...>

Plug-in possibilities
JPEG 2000 does have one drawback: The specification won't be finalized for
another year...
<snipped marketing fluff stuff...>

Which answers your question. Without established specifications in the public domain, its manifestly difficult to write a plug-in that has a prayer of being compatible.  And as as an open source initiative, any of the proprietary solutions Ms.  Simone is essentially marketing for these companies is not an option for Gimp.  

with regards
Max Moritz Sievers.
I think wavelets are an extraordinarily interesting field of study and there is a wealth of useful ways they can be applied to things Gimpish, in a public, open source kind of way. Whether in fact wavelets in general (or JPEG 2000 in particular) find their way into Gimp depends on whether advocates feel compelled to write something useful (preferably post-freeze ;).

I invite you to do so yourself, but mildly suggest you equip yourself with information sources that preserve a few more octaves of frequency components than what Luisa Simone feels her readers are capable of understanding. Start with  Amara's Wavelet Page  and follow the links from there.

Be good, be well

Garry Osgood

Reply via email to