I’m always a step behind others in these sort of things. I’ve found some demos and other stuff that uses jpeg 2000, and I made a few photos, and uploaded the results. I can see it on my system, but I have no clue if others can in general in browsers.
Most importantly, can I import jpeg2000 pictures (the demo i have outputs a .jpg AND .j2k (i think it is) format) into an fla and will it be viewable in the end resulting swf??
thank you all:beam:
You can import .jpg images into Flash (as well as .gif, .bmp, and .png images as well).
Just go to File/Import.
jpeg2000 though, you cant (.jp2). Youll have to convert them to jpeg before using them in flash. If you dont have anything that can do that, you can download irfanview and use it (its a mighty fine free image viewer)
I have never heard of jpeg2000, what is it?
And yes IrfanView rocks. I don’t currently use it, but I used to, I should start again 
jpeg2000 is the next generation of the jpeg format. It works on a quicktime tpye method of handling image information based on some kind of ‘atom’ theory as I understand it. You can find more information here.
http://www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.html
It was kindof a big thing when it was first announced a year or two ago (or whenever it was) but there were some complications in its implimentation and licensing and things got messy. But all you really have to know is that its another image format and irfanview (with the pluggins installed) can view it 
Oye. Just what we need… Another jpeg type…lol.
I like my regular jpg and gif file type just fine thank you very much 
Although I have never seen a jpeg2k file type before.
it’s just that the images LOOK so great at such a smaller size… I was pretty much impressed … so I’ll give it a shot with this demo. I’d give the name, but i’m typing from a different system I’ll post that later… I’m not sure there’s good software that creates it at a reasonable price. the one i’m trying sounds utterly prohibitive price wise. It’s just a demo thing.
Example of size difference is a pic i whittled down to 44k in photoshop is 15 k and looks good with this format
maybe you are not interested, but the demo I used is at
http://www.leadtools.com/SDK/Raster/Raster-Addon-JPEG2000.htm
it’s neat to see…
well heres a trick that might work not sure sinc ive never tried it before any ways take the jp2000 and change the extension .jp2 to .jpg and try importing it into flash see what hapens if t works youre gonna have the same quality image but with the low file size its worth a try who knows it might even work
grim
I don’t think that will work because when you import objects, it doesn’t go by the extention, it goes by the information contained in the file (I believe).
*Originally posted by lostinbeta *
**I don’t think that will work because when you import objects, it doesn’t go by the extention, it goes by the information contained in the file (I believe). **
thats right. the method used by jpeg2000 to compress images is completely different then that used by regular jpg - as are the techniques needed to show/import the image.
I suppose this is veering off a bit, but if you’ve seen the results that can be achieved using that jpeg2000 or j2k, etc. it’s quite impressive. So, … it seems the more i look, the more i find that this was a bigger issue 2 years or so ago. Why was this technology not embraced?
I see these companies jump on other things right away, and it seems to me that being able to compress images that well would change a lot on the web…
personally, i fell upon it because my own designing goofs are related to oversized files, and in one case, oversized graphics, which are most likely a no no for flash in the first place. I know that, but it would not necessarily be so with this sort of technology available. It’s a bit frustrating to me anyway!
(-:
Well as Sen mentioned earlier their were probably complications in the implementation, licensing and rights to the file type. That is why the file type was not embraced.
from what I understand/remember the company… corporation or whatever which was suppose to get this thing out there to everyone had initially planned (or it was planned) to have it free, but then they changed their mind and decided to require a fee to license the technology and whatnot which is ultimately the reason for it not taking off. compression codecs are not the way to make money. trying to do so means an unsupported format.
… its been a while but thats what I recall heh
‘something to that effect’
We’ve all been getting by on jpeg this long, it wont kill you to stick with it for now.
Yeah, especially with Broadband growing bigger and bigger lately, regular jpgs aren’t too bad.
2 years ago when this first came out, broadband wasn’t as popular and it was a bit more important to have as much compression as possible.
thanks very much for all the great input. No…of course it won’t kill me to stick with jpeg, and in fact, the whole experience ends up an excellent lesson on what works and does not work in Flash and on the web as well.
a few on here know i’m pretty new at all this, and home taught. Because of my huge file size i learned about making preloaders, etc.
I’m glad this is only about image compression and not something more serious in life… ok, so some guy had a good way to compress and simply wants to cash in or tell the world forget it. Hey… it’s his (the company’s or whatever)… right. shame, but we’ll all live.
if you have fireworks or imageready, then I suggest taking some time to get yourself a high quality image, open it up and compare the original with a compressed version (or multiple) in 2-up and/or 4-up views. play around with the settings and file types and it can really help you understand how each works and how they effect the final image.
something else to keep in mind:
jpegs do not support transparency
gifs only support ‘all or none’ transparency where transparency is actually in indexed ‘color’ which is fully see through in with the other available colors and not a whole seperate ‘layer’ of sorts as it is with…
png supports full alpha channel transparency (24/32-bit). This is a whole seperate layer of ‘color’ information layed on top of the actual colors in the picture. Its not really “color” information as its just a single value representing the transparency for each colored pixel in the image. Its typically represented as a black and white image in image editing programs if you seperate it from the actual picture. This of course means more file size and pngs as an image format is still fairly new to the web so their rendering on screen is limited and sometimes botched. They are fine (and usually prefered) for flash imports though.
anyway, play around with it. In my experience, fireworks seems to do the best job in giving you the best bang for your buck (or rather your file size)
ok! yes I have fireworks, and thanks … i’ll experiment with it…
never fails how helpful this forum is…
linque
:: Copyright KIRUPA 2024 //--