snapshots j2c

Ever since the last update my snapshots (save to disc) changed to compressed images (j2c)
I hope this can be changed back, but i can't find how.
can someone help me?

thanks

Have you checked Client/Compress images to disk?

Un check it.

Problem solved
thank you very much!

Jora

Compress images - this makes them into jpeg 2000 files

but stupidly it adds the suffix *.j2c
if you change the suffix to *.jpe they will open in your photo processor.

they are the same -just named wrongly; Lindens -you Fools!

That's the proper extension for JPEG2000 files, just set your picture viewer to recognize that extension, takes just a couple clicks.

It's A proper extension, yes, but it's not really fair to say it's THE proper extension. JPEG2000 actually uses many extensions. There are several flavors of JPEG2000, each with its own suffix. These are J2C, J2K, JP2, JPC, JPF, and JPX. I don't know details about all of them, but I think J2C is the simplest option, JPF is the default (at least for Photoshop), and I believe JPX can support several more complex features, such as animation, layers, and broader color spaces.

In any case, if you're using any of the last few versions of Photoshop, then all you have to read/write all these formats is to install the JPEG2000 plugin from your Goodies CD. It takes 2 seconds to do.

I'm not sure about other programs.


Archie, so you know, JPE is actually a JPEG suffix, not a JPEG2000 suffix. It's not accurate to say they're the same thing. They're not. While I don't doubt that you may have been able to open the files by changing the suffix, that doesn't mean they're the same. The Lindens were not "silly" to have chosen J2C. As Arcane said, it's the right suffix for the type of file that's actually being outputted.

***** BUT ******

virtually nothing recognises that extension -


jpeg2000 was a fated ill advised project and the format never took off. Even Paint Shop pro 10 could not open them.
(*.png won the day)

However if you re-name then with the batch command.

Voila !


-----to all purposes in file usage, they are similar enough not to give a damn. As for silly choice. I know of NO other program that uses them by choice. *.png would be a sensible choice and its not too late to catch up with the next century,
I mean 2000 is so old hat , what?

The only program on my computer that seems to have problems with them is ACDSee, which is old. Photoshop and Photoshop Elements read them just fine. Haven't tried PSP, been years since I used that for exactly the same reasons you mention, lack of features.

The format is great for what LL is using it for, it compresses much better then PNG and is fast to decode.

It's really a shame that JPEG2000 hasn't yet taken off very widely. It's a fantastic format, so many options, so much flexibility. For a while, there was talk that it might actually end up replacing TIFF as the photographic archival format of choice. Needless to say that hasn't happened. It has, however, become quite popular in the video industry, from what I understand.

In any case, you can't really call JPEG2000 "ill advised" or "ill fated" just because it's got 2000 in its title. Even if nothing had been done with it since the year 2000 (which isn't even the case), that would make its present form only 8 years old. Many formats, including PNG took at least that long to become popular.

The PNG specification was released in 1996, but it didn't become an international standard until 2003, and didn't become all that commonly used until a couple years after that. Even today, it's still way underused, 12 years after its intitial release. Ask the average amateur if they've ever knowlingly used PNG for anything, and 9 times out of 10 they'll say no. But they'll all say they've used JPEG and/or GIF hundreds of times.

JPEG and GIF have both been in widespread use since the 80's, so by now, enough time has gone by for an entire generation of computer users to have grown up with those formats. Neither PNG nor JPEG2000 has had that opportunity yet, and won't for a good long time. For good or ill, formats tend to be slow to adopt. It's most likely only a matter of time until JPEG disappears entirely in favor of JPEG2000, and GIF disappears in favor of PNG. But precisely how much time that will take is anyone's guess.

In any case, as Arcande said, for SL's purposes JPEG2000 is ideal. PNG, while great for many things, would be inferior for SL texture storage for many reasons. The Lindens absolutely made the right choice in going with JPEG2000.

For photographic type images, which is what the majority of textures are, JPEG2000 can produce significantly smaller files than PNG, often many times smaller. Where PNG shines, in terms of file size, is for lossless images with wide areas of monotone, like diagrams and such, but most textures don't fit that description. While PNG does have certain other options that JPEG2000 doesn't, none of those are applicable to texturing, so they're not really worth talking about. When it comes to storing images at the smallest possible file size at good quality, and making them as easy as possible to stream across the Internet and decode quickly, I can't think of better choice than JPEG2000. PNG's a great format too, but it's not as well suited for this.

Perhaps at first glance, it seems like maybe it wasn't the best idea to make SL capable of outputting snapshots as J2C, since so many people are unfamiliar with it. However, if you think about it, it does make sense. Why bother bloating the viewer with the ability to write PNG or JPEG when it already has know how to write JPEG2000? People can learn what they need to know to open J2C files in a matter of seconds. Building another output capability into the viewer would take a lot longer than that, and would unnecessarily add another component to what is already getting too big as it is.