<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Measuring Visual Clutter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.lab49.com/archives/1335/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.lab49.com/archives/1335</link>
	<description>Technology and industry insights from Lab49.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed,  2 Dec 2009 13:01:54 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Damien Morton</title>
		<link>http://blog.lab49.com/archives/1335/comment-page-1#comment-80314</link>
		<dc:creator>Damien Morton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lab49.com/archives/1335#comment-80314</guid>
		<description>Not just browsers, but also most of the content creation systems people use, such as Photoshop etc, don&#039;t come with JPEG2000 as standard codecs.

For something to take off in a big way, for me, would be for consumer-level software and hardware to support it.

Alas, that isn&#039;t the case for JPEG2000, due to what I guess are IP issues.

Thats not to say that JPEG2000 doesn&#039;t have its merits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not just browsers, but also most of the content creation systems people use, such as Photoshop etc, don&#8217;t come with JPEG2000 as standard codecs.</p>
<p>For something to take off in a big way, for me, would be for consumer-level software and hardware to support it.</p>
<p>Alas, that isn&#8217;t the case for JPEG2000, due to what I guess are IP issues.</p>
<p>Thats not to say that JPEG2000 doesn&#8217;t have its merits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Murray</title>
		<link>http://blog.lab49.com/archives/1335/comment-page-1#comment-80175</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Murray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lab49.com/archives/1335#comment-80175</guid>
		<description>Regarding your statement about JPEG 2000 compression, the Cultural Heritage community (archives, libraries, and museums) is taking up JPEG 2000 in a big way.

Have a look at the Library of Congress format sustainability pages on the topic: 

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000138.shtml

What most people mean when they say not taken off is that there is no native support in browsers - just as there is no support for the TIFF format. That particular issue gets tangled up in OS software makers&#039; manuverings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding your statement about JPEG 2000 compression, the Cultural Heritage community (archives, libraries, and museums) is taking up JPEG 2000 in a big way.</p>
<p>Have a look at the Library of Congress format sustainability pages on the topic: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000138.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000138.shtml</a></p>
<p>What most people mean when they say not taken off is that there is no native support in browsers &#8211; just as there is no support for the TIFF format. That particular issue gets tangled up in OS software makers&#8217; manuverings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
