We also use it for our 3D renders for archviz, and is supported in our editing applications aswell... lower filesize compared to PNG, and better quality compared to JPG, and also supports alphas.
We also use it for our 3D renders for archviz, and is supported in our editing applications aswell... lower filesize compared to PNG, and better quality compared to JPG, and also supports alphas.
In this case, the jpeg 2000 is probably considered a derivative and thus not a big issue for preservation.
So, presumably they could have swapped to commodity hardware a while ago.
Though lets be honest, they'd probably use Windows anyways and that probably would happen.
Edit: obviously, that's not how most movies are shown here :D
The fastest one that runs on a CPU, Kakadu (proprietary), is far behind.
How does that matter? It was a reply to your incorrect claim:
> it's decoded by (no doubt extremely expensive) hardware
https://www.intopix.com/JPEG2000
Most post-production software that reads/writes DCPs will be using a GPU JPEG2000 encoder & decoder, like this from Comprimato:
https://toolstud.io/video/filesize.php?width=3840&height=216...
They tried higher frame rates with for example the Hobbit, remember, and lots of people didn't like it for some silly reason.
That much is a given, and addresses none of the article's points.