__/ [ Linonut ] on Saturday 10 March 2007 04:29 \__
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Robert M. Stockmann belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> The article about the compression properties of conventional JPEG versus
>> Microsoft's JPEG-2000 can also be downloaded here :
>>
>> "Data Compression Basics - Part 2"
>> http://crashrecovery.org/DataCompressionBasics-Part2.pdf
>
> That article doesn't even have the word Microsoft in it. Why do you
> think JPEG-2000 is a Microsoft technology?
I read the paper about 3 years ago* and it's a (candidate?) industry
standard, so unlike what this Inquirer reader suggests, Microsoft
essentially stmops on it.
*schestowitz.com/Research/Papers/MICCAI_2004/anon.pdf (last reference)
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | No Makefile, no business
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:02am up 1 day 13:09, 4 users, load average: 0.62, 0.74, 0.65
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
