> Ive had a quick peek at JPEG2000, and as you say, the ability
> to compress with 16 bits/channel is a real plus. Im sortof annoyed
> at tools w.r.t PNG for archival (lossless) backups due their lack
> of configurability. They all seem aimed at web PNG files (8/24 bit)
> and nothing about higher depth features.
I don't understand why JPEG2000 makes a difference here. PNG can
handle 16 bits, and if a program can't do 16 bits with PNG but can
with JPEG2000, then it's rubbish.
> The JPEG2000 stuff still seems a bit 'flaky' - and doesnt
> feel like its moved on even after 18 months. Its annoying
> that the digital camera community havent moved into better
> schemes than RAW/JPG - which might provide more impetus
> to the development of better compression - both lossy/less.
Don't expect JPEG2000 to make 10kB files from 60MB scans in any decent
quality. It's not the digital photographer's panacea. JPEG2000 does
have various advantages over JPEG, but whether one or the other is
universally better is hard to say. I think that the JPEG2000 guys
didn't do a particularly good job, they could have done a lot better
(i.e. better quality at higher compression ratio). I know it can be
done better because I've worked with wavelets myself, in particular, I
have tried image compression myself.
Just my two pence worth
Andras
===========================================================================
Major Andras
e-mail: andras@users.sourceforge.net
www:
===========================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
