JPEG support in Artifact
Reg Krock took a look at how difficult it would be to port Artefact to Gemstone. He found that JPEG support uses a plugin based reader/writer, and seems to render the JPEG using BitBlt and Form. Why are JPEGs rendered? Iâd think embedding them should be enough (and be better for speed and image quality) Stephan
If I remember well, we used this way to get some data about image required by PDF format. Maybe there is a smarter way to do this, I will have a look with Olivier about this. 2014-04-03 10:32 GMT+02:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl>:
Reg Krock took a look at how difficult it would be to port Artefact to Gemstone. He found that JPEG support uses a plugin based reader/writer, and seems to render the JPEG using BitBlt and Form.
Why are JPEGs rendered? I'd think embedding them should be enough (and be better for speed and image quality)
Stephan
-- *Guillaume Larcheveque*
Hi Stephan, Yes, we have discussed with Guillaume. We don't have a better solution to propose but we will be really interested if someone write a portable JPEG support. It will be cool to have the possibility to extract header informations from pictures without using a plugin. Best regards 2014-04-03 16:02 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Larcheveque < guillaume.larcheveque@gmail.com>:
If I remember well, we used this way to get some data about image required by PDF format.
Maybe there is a smarter way to do this, I will have a look with Olivier about this.
2014-04-03 10:32 GMT+02:00 Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl>:
Reg Krock took a look at how difficult it would be to port Artefact to
Gemstone. He found that JPEG support uses a plugin based reader/writer, and seems to render the JPEG using BitBlt and Form.
Why are JPEGs rendered? I'd think embedding them should be enough (and be better for speed and image quality)
Stephan
-- *Guillaume Larcheveque*
participants (3)
-
Guillaume Larcheveque -
olivier auverlot -
Stephan Eggermont