| Re: Problem with MJ2 extension [message #60670 is a reply to message #60533] |
Tue, 27 May 2008 05:14  |
Haje Korth
Messages: 651
Registered: May 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I agree that the MJ2 format is still poorly supported. But the fact that no
inter-frame compression is used is THE advantage of the format. This way
each image accurately represents the underlying scientific dataset and
individual images are not smeared by the codec algortihm. It is accuracy
that matters, not file size!
Haje
"Mark" <mark.hadf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8abc45e-0628-4f6a-96d7-a35715f5c63a@v26g2000prm.google groups.com...
> On May 24, 4:16 pm, tarequea...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hello IDL gurus,
>>
>> I am having some trouble regarding '.mj2' extension. I have couple of
>> '.gif' files and by using IDLffMJPEG2000
>> I can get some nice animation. But the fun just ends there.I need to
>> have these on a more 'portable' formats as in : avi,mpeg,mov etc. A
>> little searching on the net did not bring anything home.
>>
>> I was hoping to get some pointers on how to convert these mj2's avi/
>> mpeg/ mov etc.
>
> For now, writing MJPEG-2000 animations is a waste of time because
> there's very little software to play the file or convert it to
> something else. You're better off writing from IDL straight to the
> format you want. There's some discussion on this right now on a thread
> entitled "animated png: a new format for scientific animations".
>
> In addition to being poorly supported, MJPEG-2000 suffers another
> limitation that makes it not very good for scientific animations: it
> fails to make any use of inter-frame compression methods. This means
> the files are much larger than they need to be.
>
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
