IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in news:d1bm40hmv75jeiuj3cp3v1382aon91bpk9@
4ax.com:

> 1. Reduction in file size with less loss in image quality. 

That's what PNG is for.

> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth. 

That's what PNG is for.

> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts. 

That's what PNG is for.

> It seems that the arguments against it are
> mainly related to people's inertia to install the required software,

Yup.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

> but that personally smacks of laziness 

Or prudence.  Adding new software is a crap shoot, even on linux and Mac 
systems.

> and allows the major software vendors to sit on their hands. 

The market decides what they do.


> If you sit still,

in respect to JPEG2000?

> you are going to find
> yourself more and more in difficulty trying to deal with what the rest
> of the graphics community is up to.
> 

That's an opinion.  



-- 
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/

Post a reply to this message