|
List Info
Thread: JPG2000 image format failure
|
|
| JPG2000 image format failure |
|
2006-01-27 19:02:13 |
|
Hi Ernest,
On 27-Jan-06 17:16:55, Ernest Unrau wrote:
> Hello ibrowse@yahoogroups.com
> On 01/27/2006, Jan-Erik Karlsson <trgswe spray.se> wrote Digest Number
> 1647:
>;> Date: 27 Jan 2006 01:05:04 +0200
>;> From: Jan-Erik Karlsson <trgswespray.se>
>>; Subject: Re: JPG2000 image format failure
>>
>>
>> of course there is support for JPEG2000 (both JP2 abd PGX) superview5
>> (and it is quite fast at decode them... slower when it comes to
>> encoding, but then you have the MOS versions which is quite fast) is one
>> and I think ghostscript supports those too (at least JP2, uncertain
>> about PGX). then you have the ports of Jasper which is a lot like the
>> IJG's jpeglib-6b software...
>>
>
> That's an interesting side note about ghostscript. Perhaps that explains
> why so many PDF documents from the Windows platform fail to show images
> when opened with Apdf even if I redistill them to 1.2 spec -- but
> ghostscript can handle them. Pdf docs redistilled with Ghostscript and
> opened with Apdf cause error messages about invalid object type unless I
> set the parameter -dMaxInlineImageSize=xxxxxx (where xxxxxx is size in
> bytes) so that ghostscript doesn't embed the images as "xobjects".
>
>; But on some of the pdf documents that come from Windows platform, even if
> I set the maxinlineimage parameter to redistill Apdf will crash
>; immediately on my system. That causes me to speculate if there is JPG2000
> image content in the original document.
Maybe so in some cases - Apdf is just old and out of date I think (I heard
the MOS version is better though). AmiPDF can usually display any PDF that
Apdf can't display here.
> To get back on topic, it seems evident it would be foolish to use JPG2000
> images on a web site, even if IB did support that format. I agree with
> someone else who pointed out that TIFF format would be a better image
>; type to support if one wants to view images in a lossless compression
> format.
>
> But I don't think any browers support that format, do they? Perhaps a
> good thing they don't. Can you imagine these already obese sites now
> adding huge TIFF images to fatten things up and constipate the data
> pipeline?
Well, true - I think it's just a case people using these image formats
because they can, and they think it is cool, without understanding why 
As another example, people who don't know otherwise think it's a good
thing to set the JPEG quality to over 95% when saving all images, when
in reality the only noticable difference this usually makes is the
filesize is much larger than it needs to be.
As for TIFF images, TIFF needn't mean huge - TIFF supports a number of
compression formats, including JPEG, LZW and deflate, in addition to
uncompressed data. ; IBrowse will actually show TIFF images if you have
a TIFF datatype installed, and likewise for any other image format. It
is relatively common to see BMP images used on pages, but if you have
a BMP datatype installed you'll never realize
--
Oliver Roberts - mailto:oliveribrowse-dev.net - ICQ: 34640231
Virtual GP mailing list ==> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualgp/
|
[1]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|