IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> 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Sorry, my list of software you use was apparently out-of-date.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.

Good point, I should learn to stop resorting to such behavior and keep
my posts on-topic and polite, like you do.

-Eamon

Post a reply to this message