In article <404b53d0@news.povray.org> , Warp &l
t;warp@tag.povray.org> wrote:
> But JPEG is "broken". It causes files to be
larger and have less
> quality than would be necessary. You demonstrably can have smaller
> file sizes with better image quality. Thus JPEG is not optimal
> and thus "broken". A fix has its place.
But JPEG 2000 is not a fix, it is a problem:
It fails the fundamental design goal of any exchange format: Simplicity. &nb
sp;Both JPEG and PNG offer a simple interchange format, JPEG 2000 is
far from simple on the other hand. That it offeres better lossy compre
ssion, well, that is to be expected from a format created many years later,
isn't it? ;-)
Fact is that JPEG 2000 has nothing really in common with JPEG other
than the group of experts who defined it. And that it offers "bet
ter" lossy compression, well, lossy is lossy, so it hardly matters for
a download if an image is 10 or 8 KB in size. On the other hand it doe
s matter if it takes additional work to view those 8 KB, while viewing the 1
0 KB image is possible absolutely everywhere - even on the web browser of a
mobile phone, for example. The complexity of the JPEG 2000 algo
rithms and implementation makes this less feasible at the moment.
Either way, and even if you don't agree with me, there are two facts that w
on't change soon:
- The web news view vill only suppor
t the three standard web image formats (GIF, PNG and JP
EG).
- By far most users here do obviously not have software to view JPEG 2
000 installed.
Thus, it is not in the interest of an
ybody here to post in such a format.
Thorste
n
PS: Wondering why I post in HTML? &nb
sp;Well, everybody has a web browser and HTML is widely supported and offers
a superior content representation over plain text, doesn't it? So, obviousl
y we should be using it in these news groups as well! ;-) ;-) ;-)
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: thorsten@trf.de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: <http://mac.povray.or
g>