One of the Google's summer of code students has taken up the task of
adding Jpeg200 support in firefox. While some don't care, few will be
happy to know this :-)
Sachin Garg wrote:
> One of the Google's summer of code students has taken up the task of
> adding Jpeg200 support in firefox. While some don't care, few will be
> happy to know this :-)
>
> http://www.devxnews.com/article.php/3671486
That might be good (though I don't really think Jpeg2000 has that much
benefit). Does IE support it? If both Firefox and IE did it might
become usable for general purposes.
> Sachin Garg wrote:
>> One of the Google's summer of code students has taken up the task of
>> adding Jpeg200 support in firefox. While some don't care, as few
>> will be happy to know this :-)
>> http://www.devxnews.com/article.php/3671486
Good news! But isn't JPEG 2000 (JP2) patent encumbered?
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> That might be good (though I don't really think Jpeg2000 has that much
> benefit). Does IE support it? If both Firefox and IE did it might
> become usable for general purposes.
No, IE7 does not support JP2 without a plug-in, e.g. recent Quicktime.
Microsoft is still trying to push HD Photo or whatever it's called now,
it appears.
> No, IE7 does not support JP2 without a plug-in, e.g. recent Quicktime.
> Microsoft is still trying to push HD Photo or whatever it's called now,
> it appears.
Maybe HD Photo has a better chance. As far as I know, it's less
encumbered, more free to use and implement. I don't know if it's
technically better or worse than JPEG2000, though.
On Apr 16, 1:11 am, Bill Tuthill <ccree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Sachin Garg wrote:
> >> One of the Google's summer of code students has taken up the task of
> >> adding Jpeg200 support in firefox. While some don't care, as few
> >> will be happy to know this :-)
> >>http://www.devxnews.com/article.php/3671486
>
> Good news! But isn't JPEG 2000 (JP2) patent encumbered?
AFAIK, there is only a 'fear' of their being patents that someone
might come up with that might cover the algorithms used in Jpeg2000.
All the known companies who have patents on Jpeg2000 have allowed free
use in Jpeg2000.
btw, initially there was a patent a company was asserting against
Jpeg2000 but, as far as I know, the case is 'over' now and decided
against that company, that might be the reason behind this 'fear' but
I wasn't around back then so don''t know for sure.
Make sure you follow the two links in comments to the second post,
that is where the real information is :-)
Moreover, the digital cinema guys are using Jpeg2000 for all the DCI
compatible movies. Only reason I can think of about why cameras don't
support Jpeg2000 is probably because it is significantly slower than
jpeg, and will drain battery faster. And we all know that advancement
in batteries have lagged far behind those in storage.
On Apr 16, 12:09 pm, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> Bill Tuthill <ccree...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > No, IE7 does not support JP2 without a plug-in, e.g. recent Quicktime.
> > Microsoft is still trying to push HD Photo or whatever it's called now,
> > it appears.
>
> Maybe HD Photo has a better chance. As far as I know, it's less
> encumbered, more free to use and implement.
Yes, that seems to be the case, but I am not sure. MS has definitely
allowed free use to developers and for use in software, http://www.c10n.info/archives/458 .
It seems to be free for in-device use also but I haven't explicitly
read that anywhere.
> I don't know if it's
> technically better or worse than JPEG2000, though.
Moreover, the original Jpeg guys have come up with an extension to
original Jpeg, it is not a part of standard yet but in process. More
details at http://www.c10n.info/archives/427
ps. I am not looking for opportunities to post links to my blog
everywhere possible, let me know if you hate this. I just thought they
are relevant here :-)
Sachin Garg <schngrg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know if [WMP / HD Photo] is better or worse than JPEG2000.
>
> For a in-depth (but still incomplete) technical comparison you can
> read http://www.c10n.info/archives/454 (its a bit too technical)
> ps. I am not looking for opportunities to post links to my blog
> everywhere possible, let me know if you hate this. I just thought
> they are relevant here :-)
Don't know about others, but for me the issue of what will replace JPEG
is a lot more important than most other posts on this newsgroup.
Jpeg2000 in firefox, finally 
Linear Mode
