On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:07:43 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>In article <404b53d0@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>>   But JPEG is "broken". It causes files to be larger and have less
>> quality than would be necessary. You demonstrably can have smaller
>> file sizes with better image quality. Thus JPEG is not optimal
>> and thus "broken". A fix has its place.
>
>But JPEG 2000 is not a fix, it is a problem: It fails the fundamental design
>goal of any exchange format: Simplicity.  

Hahahaha! Like JPEG is simple. Ever tried reading the standard. Lord
its a mind-poker!

>Both JPEG and PNG offer a simple
>interchange format, JPEG 2000 is far from simple on the other hand.  That it
>offeres better lossy compression, well, that is to be expected from a format
>created many years later, isn't it? ;-)

Yes, so perhaps its time to stop nannying people and allow them to use
it to improve the appearance of images they post - even ones that are
not, as it were, production-quality.

>
>Fact is that JPEG 2000 has nothing really in common with JPEG other than the
>group of experts who defined it.  And that it offers "better" lossy

And what has that got to do with anything? Who cares!

>compression, well, lossy is lossy, so it hardly matters for a download if an
>image is 10 or 8 KB in size.  On the other hand it does matter if it takes
>additional work to view those 8 KB, while viewing the 10 KB image is
>possible absolutely everywhere - even on the web browser of a mobile phone,
>for example.  The complexity of the JPEG 2000 algorithms and implementation
>makes this less feasible at the moment.

Just because it's complex does not make it not fit for purpose. Fact
of life - in this era of computing complexity is the norm.

Saying something should not be adopted because it is hard is a very
weak argument. How on Earth would we progress as a society if we all
had that altitude?

>
>Either way, and even if you don't agree with me, there are two facts that
>won't change soon:
>The web news view vill only support the three standard web image formats
>(GIF, PNG and JPEG).

So you are going stall on this because of more inertia - the lack of
enthusiasm to get it working right, to figure a solution out. You are
going to let a minor thing like that get in the way? So what if the
website will not thumbnail the image? People are capable of
downloading and viewing a separate viewer. Dear me, such little
effort.

>By far most users here do obviously not have software to view JPEG 2000
>installed.
>Thus, it is not in the interest of anybody here to post in such a format.

Only because of more inertia. This is all very strange coming from a
graphics community - one that I would have thought would have really
grasped at the chance to use new formats to improve their works.

>
>Thorsten
>
>PS: Wondering why I post in HTML?  Well, everybody has a web browser and

Np, because the subject is JPEG2000. Stick to the subject.

>HTML is widely supported and offers a superior content representation over
>plain text, doesn't it? So, obviously we should be using it in these news
>groups as well! ;-) ;-) ;-)

But since you have indeed wandered off the path:

There's a large majority out there that would strongly disagree with
you. 

Usenet uses a text-based medium (yes, even binaries groups are
ultimately text-based) and should not have to groan under the strain
of unrequired formatting tags when simple text will do.  Again, we see
how "compression" is a better step forwards.

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

Post a reply to this message