The slowness in adopting JPEG2000, from what I've read, is because no
major browser supports it yet.
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:45 PM
To: rmathuln@pacbell.net
Subject: [filmscanners] JPEG2000 > Paul
Paul,
I have half-heartedly tried to research JPEG2000 without reaching any
useful conclusions. Can you give a reference or a potted summary with
such
useful but not readily findable info like what is the outlook for
JPEG2000?
how good is it? is it only available for sale or are their free
versions?
if only for sale - how do they expect it to become universal? etc.
It seems stupid to have standards which are not free because they never
become standard. The slowness of uptake and limited public knowledge
seems
to support this view. But maybe JPEG2000 is the exception?
Is the lossless compression worth having, i.e. what is the compression?
Lastly, given you obviously have JPEG2000 (as a PS plugin?), why do you
save your final images as old jpeg rather than jpeg2000?
Thanks,
Julian
At 08:30 03/02/03, you wrote:
>For masters, I prefer JPEG2000 over TIFF, for the obvious size reasons.
But
>once I've done an edit, I save as 8bpc lightly-compressed JPEG (PS
quality
>setting 12).
Julian
Canberra, Australia
Satellite maps of fire situation Canberra and Snowy Montains
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
