IMBJR wrote:
> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format
> and its use in these groups?

Sure.

> I for one, for obvious reasons, believe it is a valid
> format to use for a few reasons:
>
> 1. Reduction in file size with less loss in image quality.
> A bonus for a news server - esp' one that likes to carry
> as many of the images posted to it as possible.

Yes, the better quality/size ratio is a bonus.

> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth.

> but at least the 16-bit intent is preserved.

What good is intent if it has no practical application? I don't care
much for a higher color depth that I can't see even if the "intent is
preserved".

> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts.

Isn't that just reason 1) repeated? You already addressed the
quality/size ratio there, and reason 3) seems to be the same just with
some different words and a little more information.

> Any comments?

Yes. Here are my reasons against:

con-1) Installing the required software is not always an option if
you're at a school or workplace where you're not supposed to install
software.

con-2) Even if the required software is installed, it's still cumbersome
having to open the image in the viewer to be able to see it rather than
just to see it inside ones newsreader. You may call it laziness, but
then I prefer being lazy.

con-3) The web-view of the newsgroups also won't be able to show the
images. This re-enforces both argument con-1 and con-2 as they also
apply to the web-view of the newsgroups. Besides that, the web-view now
also show small previews of attached images, which is very convenient,
but which would also not work with JPEG2000.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com **updated Jan 29**
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message