Michel Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 It would be interesting in my opinion that the next version accepts the format JPEG 2000.What do you think about ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxig Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 MichelLong time ago I read about this format not so promising future. There are many better formats then the familiar JPG but they still can't replace the old JPG. But if Igor can do it - why not, it will be only for the better. I only wonder how many people are using this format. Granot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannybr2003 Posted August 23, 2003 Report Share Posted August 23, 2003 It would prove a better version if it could keep my hair from turning grey, and enhance my looks 2000 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloegyr Posted August 23, 2003 Report Share Posted August 23, 2003 JPG2000I did ask Ivor about this several months ago, and the answer is simply the liecnce fee that has to be paid to include it in PTE, is so expensiveMikeMersea Island Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guru Posted August 23, 2003 Report Share Posted August 23, 2003 I agree with Granot, Michel. For long time we hear about this new "wonderful" format (better, formats - because there are several Jpeg 2000 codecs), but it is always "forthcoming". I saw some very good demo images, but when few months ago I downloaded a demo compression software, I got very deceiving results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimmY Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 guruI cannot agree with you! JPEG 2000 has real benefits as compared to "plain" JPEG. And all codecs I've seen work good (for example, from LuraTech or Adobe). The only drawback of JPEG 2000 (at least for me) is very high CPU power consumption to show/decompress images. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobeefstu Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 I would have to aggree with Boxig and Guido on this JPEG 2000 file format.Also :The only drawback of JPEG 2000 (at least for me) is very high CPU power consumption to show/decompress images. I dont use JPEG 2000 files ... but I did a simple file comparision/ information view in Irfan View just to get some inital idea. Here's the results using the same bmp when saved to :JPEG2000 - Wavelet- loseless compressionfile size = 139 kbmemory size = 556.64 KB (570000 Bytes)* Load time = 539 milliseconds-------------------------------------JPG/JFIF - no compressionfile size 122kbmemory size = 556.64 KB (570000 Bytes)* Load time = 42 milliseconds(* Load Time will be unique/ vary per a pc own individual capability)Since PTE timing is so influenced and critical of file size and load times of its images used within the show ... initially by the above results JPEG2000 may promote more harm than good during runtime on various/different users pcs capabilities ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrobin Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 The only real application I can see for jpeg 2000 in combination with PTE is for those photographers who want to show their photos with the ultimate quality of resolution and colour (e.g. wedding photographers, for portfolio presentation), and who are not necessarily interested in synching to music, unless at very slow speeds. The advantage of using PTE over the many other presentation programs in this type of application is the ability to add sound and fancy titles, and enjoy the fantastic high-quality transitions which PTE offers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.