[FFmpeg-user] Mathematically lossless MotionJPEG2000 encoding possible?
christophgerstbauer at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 21:36:00 CET 2014
using "ffplay -vcodec libopenjpeg -i ..." works.
So I have to force decoding with libopenjpeg to get an correct output.
As I see: ffv1 compressed (if not using slices) a little bit better than jpeg2000.
But ffv1 is much more faster than jpeg2000.
Can you explain me why jpeg 2000 is so extremely slow and needs much more CPU load than ffv1?
Where is the difference here? Both are wavelet transformation codecs, not?
I am very disappointed that jpeg2000 is a "standard" and ffv1 is not :/
FFv1 would get much more acceptance in the "professional" video world if it would be.
The reason why i want to test jpeg2000:
We are always using ffv1 but we sometimes we get "contrary wind" from the professional video world against ffv1 (like: "jpeg2000 is THE lossless codec...."). So we want to show compression rate7speed comparisons for 10bit pixel formats and above, to open their eyes.
Am 27.10.2014 um 21:08 schrieb Dave Rice:
> Hi Christoph,
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Christoph Gerstbauer <christophgerstbauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Carl,
>> here is the syntax:
>> C:\Users\gersti>ffmpeg -i C:\TESTS\8bit_ffv1_yuv422p.avi -vcodec libopenjpeg C:\TESTS\8bit_jpeg2000_yuv422p.avi
> Your encoding looks okay to me, but what process are you using to decode the resulting jpeg2000 file where you notice to color issues. Could you test playback with libopenjpeg:
> ffplay -vcodec libopenjpeg -i C:\TESTS\8bit_jpeg2000_yuv422p.avi
>>> Finally, please note that ffv1 is faster than libopenjpeg, compresses better and should make significantly less trouble than the so-called "professional" solutions you are being offered.
>> Do you mean "ffv1 is faster/compresses better than libopenjpeg" or
>> "ffv1 is faster/compresses better than motionJPEG2000 generally”?
> I suspect both are true.
> Dave Rice
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> ffmpeg-user at ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-user