--- Steve Greenbank <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> I have some vague recollections of trying it some time ago. Much,
> much
> better the JPEG but not anywhere near as good as claimed. Much
> slower than
> jpeg during compression.
For low compression there is not big difference between jpeg and
jpeg2000. jpeg2000 shines is for very high compression. jpeg will show
very strong 8x8 blocking, especially if the image is not post
processed. Post processing is not defined by the jpeg standard so often
it is not implemented and if it is then everybody uses some different
approach. In comparisson to jpeg, jpeg2000 does give astonishing good
image quality for very high compression ratios. The disadvantage of
jpeg2000 is that not many SW packages do support it yet and that it
needs considerable more computing power. Though, with todays GHz PCs
that is no big deal (but for cameras, etc).
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
