Re: [APML] JPEG2000 Format

[steve banbury <banburys@sonic.net>]

Hi Kevin--thanks for sharing the information.
I downloaded and installed the plug in for PS, and have been comparing 
resulting quality on a 2.3 meg terrestrial shot as I reduce the file size.
With a 70% quality level j2k copy---I can't see any difference in 
quality and the file size is 903 k.
At a 10% quality level setting, the filesize is 136k, but the image 
quality is notably degraded.
I  like the capability, but it doesn't appear that a factor of 182 
reduction in file size would yield pleasing results on my shots.

steve

Kevin Wigell wrote:

>I just read about a new file format for images that is billed as a replacement for jpeg. You can read an article about it at:
>http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec032104.html
>
>And you can download a Photoshop plug-in for this format from:
>http://www.fnordware.com/j2k/
>
>The JPEG2000 (or j2k) is supposed to provide better image quality than jpeg when saving at lower quality levels. It also supports a lossless compression mode. I've tried the Photoshop plug-in, and can verify that it does work, but I haven't done any comparisons of quality between jpg and j2k.
>
>The author of the article I referenced above says he took a 182 MB astrophoto and squeezed it to about 1 MB (at the same resolution) using the j2k format, without much loss in quality.
>
>Kevin Wigell
>www.kwastronomy.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Astro-Photo mailing list
>Astro-Photo@seds.org
>http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo