Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Richard Tobin on 23 Feb 2010 09:50 In article <1jede80.1agsdah1u1n98rN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> According to the wiki article on jpeg2000, iPhoto *can* open it (even in >> advanced mode). It seems only proprietary software can use jpeg2000 in >> advanced mode. >Both open JPEG200s without having to select special advanced modes. I think he was referring to whether they can open "advanced" JPEG 2000 files; see the tables at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000 -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Richard Tobin on 23 Feb 2010 09:46 In article <1jeddsg.tb1e9fxz3t2nN%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >It seems only proprietary software can use jpeg2000 in >advanced mode. "Advanced" seems to mean "supports part 2 of JPEG 2000". Part 2 is a bunch of extensions. The OpenJPEG library appears to support them: http://code.google.com/p/openjpeg/ but I don't know enough about JPEG 2000 to be sure. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Jim on 23 Feb 2010 10:03 On 2010-02-23, Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article <1jede80.1agsdah1u1n98rN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >>> According to the wiki article on jpeg2000, iPhoto *can* open it (even in >>> advanced mode). It seems only proprietary software can use jpeg2000 in >>> advanced mode. > >>Both open JPEG200s without having to select special advanced modes. > > I think he was referring to whether they can open "advanced" JPEG 2000 > files; see the tables at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000 What I can't be sure of from that table is whether only proprietary software can open it due to licence restrictions, or if it's only proprietary software that went to the bother of writing the code to do it. A lot of the GPL entries have '?' which, to me, indicates an unknown status rather than a "No it can't" status. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
From: Richard Tobin on 23 Feb 2010 10:01 In article <1jeddb9.1kgt6ke168ehyxN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >XML stinks and humans like >me can't work out what's what inside an XML file. The basic syntax of XML is trivial - essentially the same as HTML with arbitrary element and attribute names, less laxity in quoting, and no omitting end tags. It's the absurdly complicated use of that syntax in many applications that's hard to understand. Most Apple applications seem to use XML just as a very verbose syntax for property lists. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Richard Tobin on 23 Feb 2010 10:02
In article <slrnho7rhq.24o9.jim(a)wotan.magrathea.local>, Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: >A lot of the GPL entries have '?' which, to me, indicates an unknown status >rather than a "No it can't" status. A quick look at the OpenJPEG code shows it can at least read and write the extensions defined in part 2. Whether it does anything useful with them I couldn't say. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. |