> In fact JPEG has the image split in blocks, which are compressed
> separatedly. It should be possible to extract them.
That is exactly what I was referring to :-)
> If there's it should show a page saying "Please wait while we process
> the image" with a timer.
I know, I'm working on that right
Daniel Schwen wrote:
> I seriously doubt that it causes _noticeable_ lack of fidelity. I
> think it should work with only one conversion step in any case, as the
> TIF contains jpg tiles. In theory it should even work without any
> conversions as it should be possible to tile the raw jpg block data
> Does the processing and recompression cause any noticeable lack of
> fidelity, do you think? Working from a jpeg original, then converting
> to tiff and back again sounds like it might be problematic...
I seriously doubt that it causes _noticeable_ lack of fidelity. I
think it should work with o
Hoi,
I am really happy with you having an inspiration .. One of the biggest
advantages I see is that we will have something we can work with soon. I
hope it will inspire Guillaume and his team to have a good hard look at it
and make it standard functionality.
I have blogged several times about Dja
On 19 March 2010 02:35, Daniel Schwen wrote:
> Hey,
> inspired by the Djakota postig I whipped up a little wrapper around
> IIP [1] and VIPS [2]. It is basically the same think as Djakota, but
> as a compiled fast-cgi program (rather than Java).
>
> A couple of examples:
> http://toolserver.org/~d
I don't understand this - why would this have any effect on PD works?
It only affects those that are in copyright but the author is not
known, surely?
Mike
On 19 Mar 2010, at 01:32, Gnangarra wrote:
> What we could have is images that were once PD becoming copyright
> violations, minor iss
