 |
 |
Hi Wayne, This is something we are wrestling with in my department at Stanford as well. JPEG 2000 is not supported by any browser, so web delivery displays in JPEG format. JPEG is completely appropriate for continous tone images, and I think it is a very good option for delivery of photographs, illustrations, etc. However, on one of my projects we are dealing with manuscript texts. From my vantage point (I worked at Adobe for several years) there are better file formats to display texts on the web. PNG and GIF tend to yield crisper edges, better overall quality and nice small files. JPEG looks ok on manuscript texts, but the images are generally darker, fuzzier and artifact laden. Wayne, thank you for opening this up for discussion. I'm so interested to hear what others have to say on the subject. Best, Alison --------------- Alison Parks-Whitfield Stanford University Aquifer Project Manager Parker Imaging QA Analyst 650-736-7761 Quoting "R. Wayne Shoaf" <[log in to unmask]>: > At the University of Southern California we have historically used MrSID > to > deliver large compressed images over the Web. These are normally stored > as > tiffs with SID renditions subsequently derived from the tiffs. > > We are considering switching to an alternative compression because of > intermittent problems with the SIDs. One technology we're considering > switching to is jpeg-2000. > > We would be most appreciative if we could hear from others out there with > regard to preferred compression formats for delivery of still images on > the > Web -- particularly if you are using jpeg-2000. > > Thanks. > > Wayne > ---------------- > R. Wayne Shoaf > Director > Information Delivery, Organization & Retrieval > Information Services Division > University of Southern California > University Village, UVI, Bldg. A > 3305 South Hoover Street > Los Angeles, CA 90007-3557 > 213.740.4090 > [log in to unmask] > >