On 9/19/2010 4:51 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> An interesting concept but I know nothing about JPEG-2000 other than it
> exists ...
>
> Anyhow, I can see that JPEG-2000 is very, very computationally intensive. I
> can see why it has yet to show up on a camera near me. :-)
Perhaps more important are legal ambiguities discussed a little in the Wiki
article. As long as they are unresolved and
there are people out there with possible IP rights unreleased, it's not going
to be supported by the major browsers nor
implemented in any camera firmware.
As those are the only two uses that make much differences, it's essentially
dead for any mainstream use. It's been 10
years since it came out and ...
I looked into it years ago, concluded it was indeed better, but found that most
implementations at the time were not
free. Understandably, folks who had put time and money into it wanted a profit.
(I did find one app that at least let me
view them and later it was added to PS.)
There is certainly a need for a better image format for non-RAW camera output
and web display. Perhaps eventually the
rest of the JPEG-2000 players will abandon it as a lost cause for making money
and set it free.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|