On 7 Mar 2004 16:30:39 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
wrote:

>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> On 7 Mar 2004 15:12:16 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:48:50 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
>>>><tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <404b7a76@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> 
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlikely, I doubt there is any sigificant market for graphics viewer
>>>>>> utilities even on windows. So I don't think support for jpeg2k will
>>>>>> be brought to other systems by commercial software.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, on Mac OS QuickTime supports it.  So in just about any decent Mac
>>>>>OS newsreader and web browser one can view the image inline.  Still, there
>>>>>is no value added by it being JPEG 2000 and in 16 bits per color component.
>>>>
>>>> The value is in the better compression.
>>>
>>>And the 640x480 filesize limitation imposed by your favorite plugin!
>>
>> It's not my favourite, it's a suggestion. I use Photoshop. Lordy, why
>> don't you try to keep up?
>
>Sorry, my list of software you use was apparently out-of-date. Also,
>which socks were you wearing last Wednesday? I can't find it in my
>records.

Such childish rejoiners point to someone who is as lazy as the rest of
the people here and cannot find the correct counter-arguments so they
go off-track.

>
>-Eamon

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message