Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>Moose wrote:
>
>
>>The question that I don't know the answer to is why there isn't a JPEG12
>>image format. The amount of extra programming effort to carry 12 bits,
>>rather than 8 or 16, should be trivial.
>>
>>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>There is, sort of. The JPEG 2000 specification supports up to 214
>channels, each with 1-38 bits; gray or color. That's a lot more than
>you asked for but should hold the fort for awhile.
>
>
Didn't know that. The only implementations I've seen don't do all that.
Clearly superior to JPEG, but too few people have it.
>I think the reason we haven't seen more of it is that folks are afraid
>of legal tangles. Many of the math algorihms have been patented by
>others. Most of those patents have been cleared with their owners but
>"most" and "all" are two different things.
>
>
And... JPEG2000 isn't free and requires licenses even when used at no cost.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|