- From: Aaron Gustafson <aaron@easy-designs.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:08:13 -0400
- To: Le Roux Bodenstein <lerouxb@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, public-respimg@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Le Roux Bodenstein <lerouxb@gmail.com> wrote: >> My concern is then over defining a new image format, garnering support >> in tools and browsers, and bypassing any patent issues. > > Or you could just use an existing format like JPEG 2000: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000 > > from the article: "The codestream obtained after compression of an > image with JPEG 2000 is scalable in nature, meaning that it can be > decoded in a number of ways; for instance, by truncating the > codestream at any point, one may obtain a representation of the image > at a lower resolution" > > Wavelet compression appears to be made to solve exactly this problem. I had wondered what made JPEG 2000 different, but never bothered to look it up. Interesting. This may have legs… Cheers, Aaron ---- Aaron Gustafson Principal Easy Designs, LLC +1 877 EASY 313 x101 aaron@easy-designs.net @aarongustafson === OUT NOW === Adaptive Web Design: Crafting Rich Experiences with Progressive Enhancement http://adaptivewebdesign.info
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 23:09:03 UTC