Digital BW, The Print

On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:06 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>Oh I know, I'm just saying that when discussing new compressors, the
>lack of support for older platforms is pretty much consistently bad, so
>t's not a particular weakness of JPEG2000 (in fact, JPEG2000 is
>probably the most accessible, since it's an open format and there are a
>lot of implementations out there... it's just not widely used by
>individuals).

The old critical mass problem. Does anyone have a figure for takeup, in, say
browsers.

If I believed that more than say 20% of the viewers of my website would be
able to see the images, I'd provide JPEG2000 as an alternative - due to the
higher quality for the same filesize. I think I need to see native support
in at least one browser.

Instead most of the JPEG2000 "demos" I have seen are low compression JPEGs
("it would look like this if you could view it).

At present it seems that it is not worth the overhead.

Julian