Article:		JPEG2000: the Killer Image File Format for Lossless Storage
Subject:		PNG?
Date:		2003-11-22 03:06:38
From:		rjimlad
How does lossless JPEG2000 compare to PNG in terms of compression? As far as I was aware, PNG acheives a rather good (lossless) compression ratio, and is rather more widely-supported than JPEG2000. PNG (http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/) also supports alpha channels (but not layers).

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• PNG?
  2003-11-22 14:17:40  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  I was kind of shocked PNG wasn't mentioned either. I mean, it's only been around since 1995, and version 1.1 barely came out in 1998, so maybe people still haven't heard of it yet. But someone doing an article on lossless image compression would either be negligent, or naive, or perhaps even malicious to not at least give PNG a mention. It makes you wonder...
• PNG?
  2004-01-14 09:51:14  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  I mean, it's ebooks been around since 1995, and version 1.1 barely came out in 1998, so maybe people still haven't heard of it yet. But someone doing an article on lossless image compression would either be negligent, or naive,
• PNG?
  2003-11-22 15:22:03  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  I did a quick test between PNG and JPEG2000 Lossless. On several of the tests, JPEG2000 did better with files about 3/4 as large as the PNG versions. On the rest, PNG did much, much better with files 1/3 to 1/6 the size of the JPEG2000 files. Based on the few samples I looked at, I suspect that for pictures from a digital camera, JPEG2000 will do better than PNG. However, on a (24bit color) computer made file that PNG easily compressed, JPEG2000 barely managed to compress the file as all.