I believe we use libjpeg for JFIF and OpenJPEG for Jpeg2000.
Is jpeg-turbo a potential replacement for libjpeg for ordinary JPEG/JFIF files,
or a replacement for OpenJPEG for J2K files, or both? Is it a re-implementation
with the same APIs, or is it totally different?
I have no problem replacing either or both with something faster, more robust,
better supported, or more commonly found in popular distros.
But I don't want to lose any functionality along the way.
-- lg
> On Nov 22, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Shane Ambler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is switching to jpeg-turbo a possibility?
> Is there a benefit to keep using openjpeg?
>
> I am only asking as I have been asked about disabling openjpeg in the
> oiio builds as it is one of the last to still use openjpeg. I don't
> think disabling jpeg support would be very beneficial so am exploring
> the need to use openjpeg.
>
> Looking at the freebsd ports jpeg-turbo is used by 103 ports while
> openjpeg15 by 13 and openjpeg2 by only 4
>
> I am not certain that jpeg-turbo supports jpeg 2000 - I don't see any
> mention in the docs. I do know that blender uses both openjpeg and
> libjpeg with a copy of openjpeg within it's source tree and the first
> commit mentions adding openjpeg for jpeg 2000 support. This would also
> indicate the two don't conflict and aren't just drop in replacements.
>
> The goal of libjpeg-turbo is making use of SIMD instructions to get
> better performance, it claims a 2-4x speed increase, this may be a
> reason to consider using jpeg-turbo even if openjpeg is left as an
> option for only jpeg 2000 support.
>
> I also wonder how much jpeg 2000 is used if the most popular library
> doesn't support it.
>
> --
> FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing
>
> Shane Ambler
>
>
--
Larry Gritz
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Oiio-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
