On 9 Mar 2004 10:38:53 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftcom> wrote:
>> Imagine a picture with a smooth sky gradient and some small wires in the
>> foreground. JPG will introduce some artefacts (and color banding) in the sky but
>> J2K will tend to blur out the wires and make them vanish - so anyway, a loss of
>> information is a loss of information.
>
>  Can't you use different compression levels on different parts of the image
>in JPEG2000?

I think you can do with with JPEG too.

>
>> The JPEG2000 file header is just XML
>
>  And I thought they wanted the file to be as small as possible...
>
>> And about the 16bit/8bit per channel color banding controversy. Somehow this
>> reminds me on people who seem to think a 64bit CPU is twice as fast as a
>> 32bit one.
>
>  I wouldn't compare it to that.
>  I would compare it to 16-bit vs. 24-bit sound sampling. A layman does
>not hear any difference at all between 16-bit (eg. CD) and 24-bit sound,
>but professionals would not work with anything less than 24. The same
>goes for 44kHz vs. 96kHz sample rate...

It certainly is a tricky area this. I know I have seen banding in
images, and I know the solution is greater colour depth - but boy is
it ever hard to come up with an example. Believe me I've tried. 

Now even though I've failed to come up with an image example does not
mean it does not exist. A quick Googling will show that plenty of
other people think they way I do. Mind a lot think otherwise too.

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

Post a reply to this message