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?

> 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...

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message