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Sorry, my list of software you use was apparently out-of-date.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.

-Eamon

Post a reply to this message