Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013)

Re:Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013) by matja on Sunday July 17, 2022 @08:57PM (#32133297)

Well, two hard drives in RAID-0 if you want to play it back in real-time without copying it first to faster storage, because a single SATA drive cannot sustain 597.2MB/sec. Unless your definition of "basic consumer external hard drive" is an NVMe SSD over 10Gbps USB 3.2 or better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013) by chrisseaton on Sunday July 17, 2022 @09:02PM (#32133320)

As the thread says - it’s compressed. I’m giving uncompressed sizes as an upper bound.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013) by giantrobot on Sunday July 17, 2022 @10:51PM (#32134040)

The GP is pointing out that storing an uncompressed film isn't useful if it can't be played back. Playing back an uncompressed 4K film is nearly 600MBps. That's a data rate you're not going to get out of any consumer HDDs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013) by chrisseaton on Monday July 18, 2022 @04:47AM (#32135995)

But they're not uncompressed. They're compressed. You don't need to play them back uncompressed. You can even compress them losslessly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is JPEG 2000 a preservation risk? (2013) by josephcsible on Sunday July 17, 2022 @11:36PM (#32134347)

I probably wouldn't call it "basic", but aside from that, https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Rocket-Thunderbolt-External-S... seems to fit the bill fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]