Re:Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
by prvc on Sunday July 17, 2022 @08:03PM
(#32132889)
Are they not common in pdf documents, for example those distributed by The Internet Archive? I suspect this is why so many of them render so slowly, even on fast systems.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)
by userbinator on Sunday July 17, 2022 @08:19PM
(#32133028)
Yes. It's very noticeable when you're reading an ebook with J2K page images, just due to how long it takes each page to render. In contrast, regular JPEG of the same dimensions is practically instantaneous.
PDFs are probably where the majority of users will encounter J2K.
Do there currently exist tools for transcoding the images to something which renders faster?
I don't think it's common. I've wondered for a long time why every time I try to process or edit an IA book scan - and only IA book scans - they come out bizarrely mangled and broken and inconsistent across viewers (and have mostly given up using them and scanning books myself), slow and surprisingly bulky compared to normal JBIG2-compressed JPEG PDFs. OP's observations about the unreliability and inconsistency of JPEG2k across tools would explain all of this...