It's a very bad idea to support both lossless and lossy image compression in the same file format

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Lossy and loss-less image compression have very different properties and 
implementation. Using single format/file type will lead to substantial 
confusion and fail users expectations.

Generic container/archive can be used when hiding the actual format is 
beneficial.

Please consider impact on UI at time of handling such format. Why would user be 
bothered with compression method?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mieli...@gmail.com on 17 Mar 2013 at 6:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I disagree. this works fine for JPG2000.  Losless compression is a way to 
ensure that this can be used for applications like cameras, compression of 
broadcast content, etc.

Original comment by justinjo...@gmail.com on 19 May 2013 at 3:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Lossy and loss-less have very different use-cases. The fact it works in 
JPEG2000 doesn't mean it's successful. 

Please consider that this is not only confusing but also leads to incomplete 
implementations which would handle subset of the format causing even more 
frustration. This is ok for container format but not for encoding format.

Keep it robust and small and serve single purpose well. If fractal compression 
becomes mainstream in 10 years will you extend the format? I would rather see a 
new one, otherwise it will grow like a cancer (adding is simple, removing is 
not).

Original comment by mieli...@gmail.com on 19 May 2013 at 4:50

[GoogleCodeExporter]

jpeg also has different possible sub-features (like, arithmetic coding, 
lossless, rgb or yuv444, etc!).
These features are an encoder's choice, not a decoder one (which must support 
any of these anyway).
Actually, from the decoder standpoint, one don't have to know which exact 
features are used underneath
a bitstream. Having one call to decode an bitstream is handy, no question asked.

Original comment by pascal.m...@gmail.com on 29 Jan 2014 at 9:17

• Changed state: WontFix