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.

>any quality with in the first place... No thanks. It is bad enough now 
>where your only option is taking 1-2 uncompressed images or 50 crappy 
>ones, adding an 'improved' crappy version instead of at least making some 
>attempt at a lossless compression method won't imho do anything to 
>correct this flaw in cameras. Now maybe with something like PNG, I would 
>still only be able to take 25 pictures, but they would still be *good* 
>and complete images, not something you can apply several PhotoShop 
>plugins to that do nothing but turn a sharp, crisp, but screwed up image 
>into a blurry, eye watering slightly less screwed up appearing final 
>result. :(

Actually, I'd rather not have a JPEG2000-supporting camera - I'd refer
TIIF or RAW.

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

Post a reply to this message