On 7 Mar 2004 10:29:31 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:

>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.

PNG just does not cut it when performing compression to the extent
that JPEG/JPEG2000 can.

>
>> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth. 
>
>That's what PNG is for.

And it's not well supported by many of the big vendor either.

>
>> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts. 
>
>That's what PNG is for.

But at the expense of large files.

>
>> 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.

It is broke. Currently one has to tolerate bad artifacting and the
possibility that banding may occur in the image.

>
>> but that personally smacks of laziness 
>
>Or prudence.  Adding new software is a crap shoot, even on linux and Mac 
>systems.

Again, without effort there is no reward. Arguing not to do it because
ones system is potentually flaking is really lazy.

>
>> and allows the major software vendors to sit on their hands. 
>
>The market decides what they do.

Dear me, how the meak hath spoken. The customer should decide what is
what.

>
>
>> 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.  

Well, fucking duh. Like to point out the sky is blue?

Try actually responding sensibly to my opinion instead of merely
pointing out that it is one. Or can't you think of a better set of
arguments to defend your obviously lazy position?

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

Post a reply to this message