> I think it would be worthwhile to do two experiments with real people
>
> evaluating the images:
>
> 1) For a given file size with artifacts visible, which format
>
> produces the least terrible artifacts?
>
> 2) Which format gives the smallest file size with a level of
>
> artifacts that
> Are there now JPEG 2000 encoders that make images such that if you
>
> want to decode an image in quarter of the full-size in terms of number
>
> of pixels (both dimensions halved), it is sufficient to use the first
>
> quarter of the file length?
Yes, certainly. Just a matter of the progres
There are probably a couple of issues here:
> - Why didn't you include JPEG 2000?
This is the first one. However, I would also include various settings of the
codecs involved. There is quite a bit one can do. For example, the overlap
settings for XR or visual weighting for JPEG 2000, or subsamp
3 matches
Mail list logo
