Don't know what to tell you Hans.
I created this .jp2 image (posted earlier)
G5 2ghz Single dual core Mac with 4.5 GB memory
Graphic Converter 5.6.2
Original Image was 500MB
Compressed using GraphicConverter's Quality setting "95"
Final image is about 30MB and looks very good.
"compression tests" comparing the two formats has been going on for years and the consensus reached has been the same in that the end results are superior than regular
JPEG. There are scores of documents online discussing these things. Check em out :)
I might also add that JPEG2000 allows for different areas of the image to be compressed
differently using alpha masks. Different areas of an image can also have different levels of
resolution as well. Though in creating the above file, I did not employ any of those
techniques. Though whether or not Graphic Converter made any of those choices
"automatically" is unknown to me.
> I have tested Graphic Converter also. It is much worse than CS3
> It could not at all handle my 105 mb test image,
> It was impossible to drag the sliders for compression,
> This is on my 2.0 dualcore G5 with 8GB Ram,
> To be able to save it I had to first reduce the size to a 25mb image and calculate the
> sliders for a similar compression as my JPG.
> The sliders than stayed in place when I opened my large image.
> Here is some crops showing the artifacts you get with JPG2000
> Look how the bricks in the wall are destroyed and all the details in the road are blurred.
> The CS3 version was actually better but it had some weird artifact in the sky like tiling.
> It reminds me about the old Cinepack codec used back in the first years of QTVR.