Friday, April 06, 2007

Weekly readings - 06 April 2007

JPEG 2000 - Do you use it? John Nack. Adobe blog. April 02, 2007.

Photoshop has contained a plug-in for reading and writing jpeg2000 files. However, Adobe has not seen the widespread adoption of the format. With Photoshop CS2, they decided to stop installing the plug-in by default, though it is still currently available. If features no longer make sense, they will retire them in order to focus on what is most important. Adobe is trying to gauge the value of standalone jpeg2000 reading and writing. [Lots of comments on the blog.]

Questioning the Future of JPEG2000 Support in Photoshop. Peter Murray. TLDJ. April 5, 2007.

There is still some uncertainty about the format and whether it will be used much. The response to the Abode survey has been disappointing that not many use jpeg2000. It would be a shame if support were dropped since the format seems to be gaining ground. Google lists projects where some are working on wider adoption of the format.

Metadata mangling in Windows Vista. Stephen Shankland. CNet News. February 8, 2007.

Windows Vista and the Photo Info tool can cause problems with some images or the metadata. Some cameras use an EXIF Maker Note Tag in the image, and when updated, the digital camera software “may no longer recognize the metadata that is automatically added to the photo." There have also been reports of some compatibility issues and the files becoming “unreadable in other applications, such as Adobe Photoshop." Camera manufacturers may provide software for Vista users who want to open or print raw files.

Intel Gets More Time to Explain Lost E-Mails in Antitrust Case. Chris Preimesberger. eWeek. April 6, 2007

Intel has been granted more time by the court to explain how they will locate missing emails. Guidelines enacted in December require enterprises to be able to quickly find data files required by the court. Some of the items may have to be recovered from backup tapes or user backups, neither of these are indexed. The court said they had an “ill-conceived plan of document retention and lackluster oversight”. People at the highest level “failed to receive or to heed instructions essential for the preservation of their records”.