On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>In article <nodn40dt662s43d4ptqtcfeiunsit493gi@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
>says...
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:40:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott
>> <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <u2vm409qvgdd339nmqov7ecjrbsup3l58a@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
>> >says...
>> >> Mmm, perhaps. But imagine if the camera makers decide to plump for
>> >> JPEG2000 then we shall see.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Oh joy.. From one lossy compression method in a camera to another 
>> >slightly improved one for a device that you can't really afford to lose 
>> 
>> Slightly!? I beg to differ.
>> 
>Well.. I haven't really looked at the format yet, but some posts from 
>today imply that at least some solutions that could be useful are in fact 
>broken. 

Indeed. It seems the vendors are being sloppy. At least 2 people have
already managed to develop their own software to do this - so if they
can, why not the vendors?

>Since I use Opera and the one for it is broken... Maybe when the 
>viewers/editors improve a bit more, but for now I don't need another half 
>functioning program on my system.

Wishful thinking. There's always something on one's computer that's
half-cocked. For example, on my PC whenever I double-click a PDF file,
Acrobat warns me that it cannot open the file and then it does! This
is just one of many of life's little bugbears. Trying to avoid them is
impossible.

>
>> Actually, I'd rather not have a JPEG2000-supporting camera - I'd refer
>> TIIF or RAW.
>> 
>Given absolutely no other choice, so would I. However, that still means 
>my camera that 'could' have taken around 30 high quality images (at 
>around 2MB a piece with PNG, maybe less) can only take at most 10 images 
>*if* I am using a 64MB memory card in it (with RAW and TIFF taking 5-6MB 
>per image). I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos 
>and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100 times 
>the normal photograph size. A digital camera *needs* to be able to at 
>least match the same number of photos a normal camera can or what is the 
>point?

Now you are talking, but then the scanner is going to have to be a
good one.

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

Post a reply to this message