MS4W and JP2000 (.jp2)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MS4W and JP2000 (.jp2)

James_in_Utah
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
Hi,
I've installed MS4W on a WinServer2003 R2 box at work, in hopes of serving 4TB of NAIP data we are about to acquire from USGS.  That data comes in (JP2000) and they sent me a CD with 4 sample images to test.  I've tried everything I can think of to get get MS4W to serve them.  I tried pointing a layer directly at one of the .jp2 files.  I tried adding the four files to a shape file index using gdaltindex.  I don't think that worked, but I didn't get an error.  I don't think it worked because if I open the shape file I don't see the polygons where the images should be.  Nothing seems to work.  I then used Global Mapper to convert the files to tifs.  That works great.  I can point a layer directly at a tif, and it serves it up fine.  I can add the tifs to an index and I can then see all 4.  I did seem to loose resolution in the conversion, and the borders of the 4 tifs isn't exactly correct, so maybe my projection is wrong?  Anyway, from the documentation I think I saw that jp2 was built in?  Is that correct?  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MS4W and JP2000 (.jp2)

James_in_Utah
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
I got this resolved with some help from Rich here on the board.  I was using the wrong projection and once that was corrected the JP2 files work great.  The next issue is my Blue Marble Next Generation set of JPGs and PNGs work, but it takes between 10 and 15 seconds to download each image from the mapserver.  Has anyone got any suggestions on what could cause this.  I put a world file in the directory for each of the jpgs, and each of the pngs.  I then added them to an index shape.  The correct image is eventually returned, but like I said it takes about 15 seconds.  I've tried this on a server and on a desktop with the same result.
Thanks,
James