In this study, the performances of JPEG (the most widely used lossy image compression standard until it was published in 1992), JPEG2000 (designed to provide superior image quality at low bit rates) and JPEG XR (aimed to reach the speed of JPEG and the quality of JPEG2000) are evaluated with an application developed in C# language which is able to use different codecs. The results show that recently developed JPEG standard (JPEG XR) is able to compress images with the same quality as JPEG2000, but not the same speed as JPEG.

Performance comparison of JPEG, JPEG2000 & JPEG XR image compression standards

Research on wavelet image coding yielded the ISO/ITU JPEG 2000 standard. Although JPEG 2000 provides improved compression, the its great are progressive resolutions, bit-rate control (or quality control), and regions of interest. What does this suggest for the future of image coding? Should the old requirements (smaller files, faster transmission) be replaced? Perhaps it is time to view still image coding in the larger context of image communication considering such functionality such as access, enhancement, restoration, editing, understanding, security, indexing, and distribution. This paper surveys recent research with respect to these features and suggests future requirements for image coding systems.

Beyond compression: a survey of functionality derived from still image coding

One difficulty in image compression research is designing meaningful performance metrics. Purely numerical measures such as PSNR are unsatisfactory because they do not correlate well with human assessment. We introduce a method of subjective image evaluation for image compression called calibrated rank ordering (CRO). CRO is attractive because it produces substantial numerical results without excessive burden on the observers. Using CRO we compare traditional JPEG with JPEG 2000 in a variety of modes. We also consider the effect of differing images sources, i.e., digital still camera vs. film scan. Finally, we compare and contrast the artifacts of both JPEG and JPEG 2000.

T.T. Chinen

Papers

Visual comparison of JPEG 2000 versus conventional JPEG