>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
>
>Robert - I am confused. Can you tell me which implementation uses kakadu,
>given you know it is fast? I thought the fnord thing was kakadu based, but
>obviously I've got it wrong some
> From: Robert Meier
>
> http://www.fnordware.com/j2k/ This one is free. AFAIK this one is based on
> kakadu which is one of the best and cheapest j2k codecs
> available. There is another free PS plug-in one but I forgot the URL.
I'll try it. I'd be happy to find something faster. (Where'd they ge
I wonder if anyone makes a decoder that spits out the lower resolution data
first, and then improves it as it gets to the higher resolution data. The
LuraWave plug-in doesn't do this, because it's only intended for loading a
file into Photoshop, not display it on the fly.
--
Ciao, P
Most open standards documents cost money, but only to cover the costs of
administering the standardization process. I bought the C++ standard when it
came out--it was $85. A standard that needs to be licensed generally costs
wy more than that, because the patent holder is trying to make money o
The slowness in adopting JPEG2000, from what I've read, is because no
major browser supports it yet.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] JPEG
