POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.general : JPEG2000 : Re: JPEG2000 Server Time
3 Aug 2024 20:14:54 EDT (-0400)
  Re: JPEG2000  
From: IMBJR
Date: 7 Mar 2004 13:54:59
Message: <d2sm40lg4kq3d9fv7v6f3kct9c2vtfc9l1@4ax.com>
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:47:55 +0200, Severi Salminen
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format and its use in
>> these groups?
>
>I also think that JPEG2000 should not be used in these groups until 
>there are newsreaders that have more or less integrated support for the 
>format. 

Forte Agent by those standards is therefore well regressive, yet it is
looked upon with some favour by many.

>You can call it lazyness, I don't care, but the usage of an 
>external program for image viewing in these groups is very inconvenient, 

Yes, I will call it laziness. There's no such thing as a free lunch in
software. Get used to it.

>awkward and slow - compared to inline viewing of JPEG images. At least 
>OE and Thunderbird don't support it - I'm not even sure if JPEG2000 
>licence permits a (free) plugin for Mozilla/Thunderbird (anyone know?). 

Well infranview has a free plugin and I've used another free plugin
for generation of these images. Even if the thing were not free, so
what? Again, there's no such thing as a free software lunch.

>I found no information that Opera or Forte Agent would have the support. 
>There are of course zillion other readers on both Win and other 
>platforms but the above are the more common ones. But if and when the 
>support becomes common I favor the usage of JPEG2000 also in these groups.

Chicken and egg. "Let's wait and see" instead of "Let's be making this
work".

>
>And _even_ if the decoder did automatically dither (I don't know if they 
>usually do) the 16-bit image to reduce banding it would still be of 
>little advantage when the majority of images posted in new.povray are so 
>small the the banding is usually not even visible. And sometimes a 

There are always counter-examples I'm sure. So that's a pointless
statement.

>dithered image looks even worse than the one with slight banding. But of 
>course, Jpeg2000 has other merits more important than being 16-bit.

Indeed. Pity you people seem to have decided to forego them.

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


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.