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. 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.

> 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?

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message