Would love to see Lightroom support JPEG 2000 upon import and as an export format choice from RAW/TIF/JPG. JPEG 2000 is a great format for archiving large numbers of rendered still images in a lossless (or lossy) compressed manner. Lossless it is 1/3 the size on average of a comparable uncompressed TIF.
It's my understanding that with 16 bit data, LZW losslessly-compressed TIFs can actually grow in size from their uncompressed counterparts. I suppose you could losslessly-compress TIF through ZIP, but I don't know of any image editing software that deals with ZIP files in any elegant way (whereas Photoshop and Capture One support JPEG 2000). In either case, I believe that JPEG 2000 lossless compression would still win out over ZIP with 16 bit data. But please feel free to correct me on this score.
But beyond its lossless option, JPEG 2000 can be visually lossless at pretty high compression rates (i.e. data lossy). It is why institutions like the Library of Congress, Harvard U., Internet Archive, The Wellcome Library (UK), and the LDS (FamilySearch) folks employ JPEG 2000 at scale.
Some additional food for thought, just to further follow up with supporting comparative metrics of RGB-rendered derivatives each made from an undemosaiced DNG Raw file that I picked at random:
Yes, LZW can increase the size on 16 bit/channel data.
ZIP does a much better job for 16 and 32 bit/channel data.
ZIP is already a widely supported compression method in TIFF.
JPEG 2000 still does a better job than ZIP regarding lossless compression and offers even greater proportional file size savings through its optional lossy compression choices. Please see the sample metrics that I've included in this thread.
How it seems to me: (I'm not a jpeg2000 expert)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of acceptance for jpeg2000 is one of those sad things in technology history.
Summary: better than jpeg, png, and tiff, and could replace all 3, but never will.
Bottom-line: what matters most is NOT how many plusses something has, but whether there is one deal breaker ;-}.
I don't know what the deal breaker was, but obviously there was one.. (assuming my assessment of general superiority is on target, which nobody seems to dispute, other than it takes more horsepower, but since the requisite horsepower is there on all modern systems, that seems like a non-issue in most contexts..).
PS - I tried conversion to jp2 (upon export) using Exportant plugin (Image Magick "filter"), and it works, but color is a bit off, and it sometimes bombs, so I can't really recommend it.
Example parameters:
-format jp2 -define jp2:rate=.5
(rates are from 0 to 1, where 1 means lossless)
News: problem with color when converting to jpeg2000 via image magick is now an acknowledged bug (of the icc profile handling variety), so it should be fixed soon. - standby if you're interested in exporting jpeg2000.
=========================
Rob, thanks for the thoughtful reply. The perception of JPEG 2000 is a tale of ongoing ironies. It's thought of as lacking adoption, yet the reality is that there may be more JPEG 2000 files out there than TIFs. When you just consider that the Internet Archive, Google Books, and the LDS (FamilySearch) folks alone employ JPEG 2000 at scale, we are talking about still image numbers in the billions if not trillions. Internet Archive alone estimates that they have scanned 2.1 million books at their scanning centers > 2.1 million x 200 pgs. per average book = 420 billion.
Personally, I use JPEG 2000 in the digital production lab that I run at UConn. Unlike the examples above who employ enterprise, somewhat monolithic, command-line software for their JP2000 encoding, I wish to keep JP2000 encoding/decoding within my existing Lightroom DNG-editing ecosystem. The student photographers that I hire come to the job with basic Lightroom and Photoshop experience that I like to leverage when I teach them power use of both programs. I currently have LR hand-off edited DNGs to PS batch actions for JP2000 creation. Though this works, the workflow could be much smoother if LR simply did a straight JP2000 export itself (like Capture One). In turn, JP2000 import would be great for file validation and quality control purposes. Currently I use Bridge for visual QC, which again is another programmatic hand off.
A year ago or so, I tested the LR JP2000 import plugin that you mention. It didn't work to scale and hung a lot. The ImageMagick-based Exportant plugin sounds promising, but also has issues as you mention. Though such 3rd party plugins aren't yet ready for this purpose, I'm happy to at least see the developer community attempt to build such tools for JP2000. I appreciate that. Yet perhaps their current shortcomings additionally point towards the need for Adobe itself to build in such LR functionality in a more stable way. JPEG 2000's beneficial compression attributes can be leveraged by anyone with an image archive of any size, not just libraries and archives. If anything, personal digital archives are getting larger, not smaller with time and with higher-megapixel sensor trends even among camera phones.
@michael: If it were me, I'd take the path of least resistance and convert all jpeg2000 files to tiff or jpeg, but I respect your willingness to keep fighting the good fight.. - I hope you win.
Ignoring the circular argument that JPEG 2000 adoption may be partially undermined by lack of software support, lack of software support derives from a lack of broader format adoption, I'd just like to ask... Why, when Adobe already has a Photoshop-supported JPEG 2000 encoder/decoder, isn't the format also supported in Lightroom? Is it viewed as a particularly difficult feature to port over to LR? I ask simply out of curiosity, naivete of LR's codebase and how Adobe itself views LR's purpose and audience.
Photoshop MUST support jpeg2000, because people expect it from a general-purpose image editor.
Lightroom need not support jpeg2000 because no cameras save jpeg2000 files.
Don't get me wrong - I'm on your side: I hope Adobe continues to expand Lr import (and export) file format support, so people using Lightroom to manage camera images can also use it to manage scanned images, or any other images saved in format-x even if not direct from camera, or export in whatever format they feel like.
Bottom line though: If jpeg2000 goes on the table, something else must come off, and most people would not give much up to gain jpeg2000 support. Thus the reason it's not been implemented, yet.
PS - it's not trivial to port code from Photoshop to Lightroom: different language, different environment.. - probably wouldn't require a herculean effort, but still: time-consuming..
I think that it would be great to hear directly from Adobe on why JPEG 2000 isn't supported in LR? Rob, I'm not following some of your assumptions:
"Lightroom need not support jpeg2000 because no cameras save jpeg2000 files." Assuming that is true, then why would it support RGB-rendered TIF, a standard few cameras create natively? Or is the TIF argument really being stretched thin in this case to TIF/EP-based raw formats?
"If jpeg2000 goes on the table, something else must come off" So LR development is never additive? What came off the table when video formats support went on the table and into full production between LR v.2 and v.3, for example?
As outlined in this thread, I believe JPEG 2000s compression efficiencies are real and demonstrable . I also believe that as time goes on, efficient data compression will become even more important in all digital imaging than it already is. This fact hits both the pro with their large MP Nikon or Sony, or the casual shooter on vacation with their new Nokia camera phone sweeping a multi-shot pano. If Adobe doesn't want to support the format in LR, that is fine. I'd just like to know the evidence and logic behind the decision, so I can better understand the decision.
Perhaps it would be best if I don't venture to speak for Adobe.
But you're right, and I stand corrected: Lightroom does support two kinds of files:
* those that come from cameras.
* those that come from editing such photos in an external editor such as Photoshop.
My point was really that Lightroom is not a general purpose image editor, whereas Photoshop is (and cost much more, and has been around for decades longer, and has more users than Lightroom..).
Again - don't get me wrong: I'm on your side - I fully appreciate that some Lightroom users also want to use it for scans, or any other image files they might have around regardless of origin, and for that reason jpeg2000 support would be worthwhile.
PS - When I said something comes off the table, I meant for everything you do there is an opportunity cost - every feature request unimplemented and bug unfixed is an example of what came off the table (or never went on) when video was implemented..
I have been using Photoshop for years to archive my scanned film negatives. Your own jpeg2000 file format has allowed me to save the photos in a lossless format that also meant huge savings in digital media storage until only a few short years ago, but which has admittedly become less and less significant a factor.
Having just got my first "real" digital camera I decided to get Lightroom 5 to help me handle the workflow. You can imagine my utter dismay when I find out that Lightroom cannot handle the jpeg2000 format. This means I can use it with any new pictures taken, but with all of my photos dating from earlier this year back to 1993 (some 2000+) it is completely useless.
Would it have been that much effort to "port" your Photoshop plugin for your "professional" digital photographer's tool? I can understand that you probably would not be making any money on it, but isn't NOT alienating a number of dedicated users (albeit a niche, but I have since discovered that I'm definitely not the only one) in supporting your own products also worth the while? Or is optimizing shareholder value the only the reigning principle these days?
Wishing I could return Lightroom 5 (I could just as easily work with Photoshop alone),
Pato
I find a $50 plugin for Lightroom to handle .jp2 (JPEG2000) files, but I find it hard to believe that Lightroom cannot handle a basic photo file. I'm assuming it is operator error for now. Thank you.
If anyone in Lightroom development is listening: I use Lightroom to not only manage digital files created by digital cameras, but also images created on film and scanned. Scanned images can be a huge space hog on a hard drive. It would be really nice if you could support the Jpeg2000 format in lightroom and bridge so I can more easily manage my files. As a start, I would even take the ability to see a thumbnail of the jpeg2000 file as a win.
Please could you add this file format in future versions of LR? At the moment there is just a third party plugin for reading files in this format, no write support.
As long as no third party developer fills that gap, LR needs an extra conversion workflow by using third party applications, which is not very handy.
JPEG2000 may be not be this popular among photographers, but it is used in many institutions like museums etc, as it is known to have some huge advantages for archiving big data pools in an effective and error correction friendly way.
For the interested, some scientific insights about the advantages of JPEG2000 can be found here:
If anyone in Lightroom development is listening: I use Lightroom to not only manage digital files created by digital cameras, but also images created on film and scanned. Scanned images can be a huge space hog on a hard drive. It would be really nice if you could support the Jpeg2000 format in lightroom and bridge so I can more easily manage my files. As a start, I would even take the ability to see a thumbnail of the jpeg2000 file as a win.
My comment to 3dworks was lost when their comment was transferred here -- but it is even more relevant in this thread. Check out AnyFile for these kinds of problems — it solves my issues with many file types.
thanks for the tip, but anyfile is most useful for adding documents to the database. it does not allow to use the original image data inside the develop module of LR - as far as i understand. thus, native support of more data formats would still be very welcome.
Despite it is an old thread I'd like to add my voice in favor of using JPEG2000. This file format has more possibilities as the old JPG and uses sometimes even less space with better quality and 16 bit per color. Some people argue in favor of TIFF but it's even older and compresses even worse. It takes multiple times of space on hard disk or web space. It is right that hard disks are cheaper than a few years ago but I have a number of images and than it is taking effect again. So far I did not found any image file format saving 16 bit per color outperforming JPEG200 in compression rates.
So I would be very happy if I can use JPEG2000 in LR or get a new file format with better compression ratios in PS and LR.
while maybe useful for a few, this plugin is read only and windows only. i wonder why the developer never decided to enable it to read and write and make it mac compatible. of course, a native support of JPEG2000 would still make much more sense.
42
Replies
AdChoices