-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
JPEG2000-RCT formula update #57
Conversation
I think "It is expected (to be confirmed) to remove this exception for the transform in the next version of the bitstream." should be removed. I dont think its expected |
I understood it as a bug, because current spec is about JPEG2000-RCT everywhere, and I did not see such transform (G and B inverted compared to JPEG2000-RCT) elsewhere.
And if it is intended and planned to be kept, maybe we need to find another name for this I am in favor to have a version 4 more coherent, and same transform for |
It is a bug of course, we might solve this by replacing the JPEG2000-RCT (with bug) by a more efficient transform for example or we might leave it and fix the bug. I dont think its correct to say we expect that JPEG2000 RCT without bug will be the transform in the next version. Maybe it feels nitpickish but i think we shouldnt write in the spec an expect a specific solution in this case |
Could we say something like this instead?
It warns the present implementer that we may make a change but does not make it seem as if we already have consensus on how. IMHO we should split the discussions: one to document the present incoherency in plane order and a different one to consider the options to improve on this in a later version. Still I want to ensure that we have consensus on the JPEG2000-RCT transforms with bits <8 and >16. From the current reading the exception applies only to the 9-15 range, so if another user implements a |
I second this form. |
I changed Jerome's:
to
and force updated. Please re-review. |
In order to be compatible with files in the wild
ping |
I’m OK with the formulation, even if I would have preferred to resolve now the exception by a more efficient transform (but that’s just me). |
In order to be compatible with files in the wild