Jpeg 2000 - GoFuckYourself.com

rossiya2 · 04-11-2003, 11:56 PM

Anyone using them yet? Corel Photo Paint seems to support them but are they useful outside the Corel environment? Or are they just an updated version of the wavelet '.wi' file leading to a dead end?

AdultNex · 04-12-2003, 02:22 AM

Is this what you're talking about?
http://www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.html

KRL · 04-12-2003, 02:27 AM

Photoshop has an update that supports the new JPG format.

The quality and compression improvement is really good on those.

AdultNex · 04-12-2003, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Photoshop has an update that supports the new JPG format.

The quality and compression improvement is really good on those.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

Cooler · 04-12-2003, 02:51 AM

but I am afraid current webbrowsers don't support this new format yet

Brocomoli · 04-12-2003, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cooler
but I am afraid current webbrowsers don't support this new format yet

Valid question.. does anyone know?

AdultNex · 04-12-2003, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brocomoli

Valid question.. does anyone know?

I don't think current browsers support this.

Here's the plug-in for the browser anyway:
http://www.algovisionluratech.com/pr...jsp?language=3

rossiya2 · 04-12-2003, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cooler
but I am afraid current webbrowsers don't support this new format yet

I used the Corel WI files with a codec from a French guy. A 100K file made 4 screens of image blowing away the jpegs. I had two gigs free disk space last night but after converting a 200 meg site to jpegs the disk was full.

Funny that technology didn't catch on when bandwidth was $2000/megabit. Now even Corel has dropped WI files since version 9. They should mention that Photo-Paint 11 works best when the disk space is quadrupled.

Matt 26z · 04-12-2003, 05:46 PM

It's all politics.

The JPEG2000 technology has been around for a long time, but MS will continue to drag their feet when it comes to IE supporting it.

JPEG2000 makes pages load much faster. Thus, degrading the need for broadband connections. This then costs MSN money in the long run.

If someone wants broadband for general browsing and not file downloading, JPEG2000 suddenly makes 56k connections just fine again.

Big Monkie · 04-12-2003, 05:57 PM

I have fiddled around with it lately and it does perform well. My latest version of compupic works well with it and i have been giving some thought to using the lossless mode for archiving content. But like any (relatively) new format its a gamble. I have been hearing that m$ is going to support it in their upcoming browsers but have no idea if this is really true. Thats what will determine if it ever becomes popular or not. Its been around a few years now and still nothing. Could be like png or other formats, another good idea that goes nowhere. But there seems to be a lot of support for it in the web standards community so will have to wait and see if m$ wants it to succeed or not.

REMbraNT · 04-12-2003, 06:39 PM

I have this nice proggie, Lurawave JP2 v1.1.9.12 for Adobe Photoshop.

I can't believe how good the jpeg2000. When I converted my 800k jpg to jpeg2000 it was 102k. You can see any differences in 3-400% zoom mode.

Unfortunately no browser support for it. If I.E. 7.0 won't support it, no chance at all. Making people to install unknown plugins not helps this product to be alive.

04-11-2003, 11:56 PM	#1
rossiya2 Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 287	Jpeg 2000 Anyone using them yet? Corel Photo Paint seems to support them but are they useful outside the Corel environment? Or are they just an updated version of the wavelet '.wi' file leading to a dead end?

04-12-2003, 02:27 AM	#3
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	Photoshop has an update that supports the new JPG format. The quality and compression improvement is really good on those. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

04-12-2003, 02:22 AM	#2
AdultNex Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bostonnnn Posts: 8,985	Is this what you're talking about? http://www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.html

04-12-2003, 02:51 AM	#5
Cooler Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 180	but I am afraid current webbrowsers don't support this new format yet

04-12-2003, 05:46 PM	#9
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	It's all politics. The JPEG2000 technology has been around for a long time, but MS will continue to drag their feet when it comes to IE supporting it. JPEG2000 makes pages load much faster. Thus, degrading the need for broadband connections. This then costs MSN money in the long run. If someone wants broadband for general browsing and not file downloading, JPEG2000 suddenly makes 56k connections just fine again.

04-12-2003, 05:57 PM	#10
Big Monkie Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Asphalt Jungle Posts: 382	I have fiddled around with it lately and it does perform well. My latest version of compupic works well with it and i have been giving some thought to using the lossless mode for archiving content. But like any (relatively) new format its a gamble. I have been hearing that m$ is going to support it in their upcoming browsers but have no idea if this is really true. Thats what will determine if it ever becomes popular or not. Its been around a few years now and still nothing. Could be like png or other formats, another good idea that goes nowhere. But there seems to be a lot of support for it in the web standards community so will have to wait and see if m$ wants it to succeed or not.

04-12-2003, 06:39 PM	#11
REMbraNT Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Hungary Posts: 241	I have this nice proggie, Lurawave JP2 v1.1.9.12 for Adobe Photoshop. I can't believe how good the jpeg2000. When I converted my 800k jpg to jpeg2000 it was 102k. You can see any differences in 3-400% zoom mode. Unfortunately no browser support for it. If I.E. 7.0 won't support it, no chance at all. Making people to install unknown plugins not helps this product to be alive.