JPEG2000

"Nanouk" wrote in
news:41987ce6$0$276$:

Hi all

I have just downloaded a demo version of a JPEG2000 plugin. Very impressive.

Indeed?

I’m having trouble seeing it. What impressed you so much?

Before deciding whether or not to use it on a regular basis I need to know if the same quality will be seen by web users. I understand that it will not be possible unless the user has a jpeg2000 plugin (at $79!!)

Is this correct?

Entirely. And you hit the problem squarely on the head – JPEG is desireable only for very specific applications, all of which involve file transfer. If almost no one can use the files once received, why would JPEG 200 be of any use?

Hi Eric

Thanks

Absolutely, I always used .psd or .tiff for non-web work. It seems to me that jpeg2000 is better at high compression – much better clarity, less loss of tone and smaller file size. But as it cannot be used for the web (which is the only reason for trying it out} I won’t be using it!

Nanouk

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Nanouk" wrote in
news:41987ce6$0$276$:

Hi all

I have just downloaded a demo version of a JPEG2000 plugin. Very impressive.

Indeed?

I’m having trouble seeing it. What impressed you so much?

Before deciding whether or not to use it on a regular basis I need to know if the same quality will be seen by web users. I understand that it will not be possible unless the user has a jpeg2000 plugin (at $79!!)

Is this correct?

Entirely. And you hit the problem squarely on the head – JPEG is desireable
only for very specific applications, all of which involve file transfer. If
almost no one can use the files once received, why would JPEG 200 be of any
use?

I use JPEG2000 for huge posters. I used to send them by CD-ROM to the printer, but now I send them by email (< 2 MB). Nobody sees the difference on the printed poster. I use the JPEG2000 ability of Acrobat 6 (professional). Anyone with the reader from version 6 can open and print it.

From Photoshop, I didn’t miss JPEG2000 so far. There are some freeware plugins around btw. Never tested them.

Waldo

aha! so JPEG2000 has some redeemable features after all?

This is good to know Walso

Cheers!

Aerticeus

"Waldo" wrote in message

I use JPEG2000 for huge posters. I used to send them by CD-ROM to the printer, but now I send them by email (< 2 MB). Nobody sees the difference on the printed poster. I use the JPEG2000 ability of Acrobat 6 (professional). Anyone with the reader from version 6 can open and print it.

From Photoshop, I didn’t miss JPEG2000 so far. There are some freeware plugins around btw. Never tested them.

Waldo

Aerticeus wrote:

aha! so JPEG2000 has some redeemable features after all?

Absolutely. In general I am very sceptical towards lossy compression, but in some occasions it is very handy. Compare it to MP3, it sucks but for on the road, it suffices.

Waldo