Digital image formats suitable for museum publications

STELLA SYLAIOU1, PETROS PATIAS2, OLGA GEORGOULA3, LAZAROS SECHIDIS4

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

ABSTRACT:

More and more museums make use of digital technologies, in order not only to make their
collections digitally accessible to the wide public and to contribute to the preservation of their
exhibits, but also to augment the visitor’s understanding.

Museum data are published in web pages at the Internet, or/and in closed networks (intranets) for
their visitors. The main problem has to do with the slow speed of the Internet, with regard to the
large amount of information–more specifically of pictures– that should be transferred. These
images should have high resolution, in order to show adequately the details of the exhibits.
However this involves pictures of large sizes and thus it creates storage and transmission
problems of files. In order for these problems to be faced, new formats of pictures, such as
FlashPix and JPEG2000 were created, that can manage the transfer of large amount of data and
pictures of high resolution.

This paper presents the comparative results of our research with regard to new formats of
pictures and how can either traditional or virtual museums take advantage of the potential of
these new technologies.

1
Archaeologist, MSc in Archaeological Computing, PhD Candidate in Dept. of Architecture,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, sylaiou@photo.topo.auth.gr.
2
Professor in Dept. of Cadastre, Photogrammetry and Cartography, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Greece, patias@topo.auth.gr.
3
Assistant Professor Dept. of Cadastre, Photogrammetry and Cartography, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, Greece, olge@topo.auth.gr.
4
Survey Engineer, PhD, Post-doctoral researcher in Dept. of Cadastre, Photogrammetry and
Cartography, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, lazikas@photo.topo.auth.gr.
Ψηφιακά είδη εικόνων κατάλληλα για δηµοσιεύσεις µουσείων

ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ:

Όλο και περισσότερα µουσεία κάνουν χρήση των ψηφιακών τεχνολογιών, όχι µόνο για να κάνουν
τις συλλογές τους ψηφιακά προσβάσιµες στο ευρύ κοινό και να συµβάλουν στη συντήρηση των
εκθεµάτων τους, όσο και για να βοηθήσουν τον επισκέπτη να τις κατανοήσει.

Τα δεδοµένα των µουσείων δηµοσιεύονται είτε σε ιστοσελίδες στο ∆ιαδίκτυο (Internet), είτε σε
κλειστά δίκτυα (intranets) που απευθύνονται στους επισκέπτες τους. Το βασικό πρόβληµα που
δηµιουργείται έχει να κάνει µε τις αργές ταχύτητες του ∆ιαδικτύου, σε σχέση µε το µεγάλο όγκο
πληροφοριών – ειδικότερα των εικόνων – που πρέπει να διακινηθούν. Οι εικόνες αυτές πρέπει να
έχουν υψηλή ανάλυση, για να αποδίδουν ικανοποιητικά τις λεπτοµέρειες των εκθεµάτων. Κάτι
τέτοιο συνεπάγεται εικόνες µεγάλου µεγέθους, γεγονός που δηµιουργεί πρόβληµα τόσο σε
επίπεδο αποθήκευσης των αρχείων, όσο και σε επίπεδο διακίνησής τους. Για να αντιµετωπιστούν
αυτά τα ζητήµατα δηµιουργήθηκαν νέα είδη εικόνων, όπως το FlashPix και το JPEG2000, τα
οποία διαχειρίζονται αποτελεσµατικά σηµαντικό όγκο δεδοµένων-εικόνων υψηλής ανάλυσης.

Η συγκεκριµένη ανακοίνωση παρουσιάζει τα συγκριτικά αποτελέσµατα της έρευνάς µας σχετικά µε

τα νέα είδη εικόνων και το πώς είτε τα παραδοσιακά, είτε τα εικονικά µουσεία µπορούν να
επωφεληθούν από τις δυνατότητες και τις δυνατότητες αυτών των τεχνολογιών.

KEYWORDS: Digital image formats, museums, progressive transmission.

 1. INTRODUCTION

Museums usually have very extensive collections. Only some of their exhibits are
displayed to the public, either because they do not have enough space to exhibit, or
because some of them are very fragile and can be damaged. Additionally, due to the
cost of exhibitions, it is virtually impossible to make all of them available to the wide
public. In the digital era, museums that by definition are devoted to the collection,
preservation, management and presentation of cultural objects or records, design new
strategies, explore new means for the dissemination of the information and the potential
of new emerging technologies and finally take advantage of new tools and techniques.

After their digitization, museum collections can be published and presented either to a
CD-ROM, or in an intranet and the World Wide Web. Museums very often put their
collections to the Internet (Web 1), where the cultural objects can be available to the
wide public through images. These publications do not replace the museum exhibitions,
but they can make available images and information of exhibits to people that do not
have the opportunity to visit the museum, or even to provide images and information of
cultural objects that cannot be displayed in the museum. Furthermore, creating high-
quality digital copies of archives and disseminating the information the museums hold,
can contribute to the long-term preservation and conservation of these cultural objects or
records for future generations.

Images of museum exhibits need to be detailed enough, so as to provide as much

information as possible. The level of detail (LOD) is dependent on the resolution of the
digital images. The dissemination of museum publications is usually supported by
conventional digital image formats. High-resolution conventional images produce very
large files that are difficult to be managed and transferred over networks, because they
are dependent on bandwidth availability (slow Internet connections). Correspondingly,
the storage capabilities of the server’s and the user’s PC should be large. The image
size can be decreased by compression utilities. However, the images that use
compression to reduce their size usually cause a serious deterioration of the image
quality. Different strategies were required and new imaging technologies have been
rapidly developed, so as to meet the needs for speed delivery and quality of images.

Firstly, in 1996, the FlashPix image format has introduced a different approach
concerning the image architecture. It combined a high-resolution version of an image
with a hierarchy of lower resolution copies. It has been widely used by cultural
institutions. Some drawbacks of this format have been pointed out and a new image
format, JPEG2000 that is based on the FlashPix format philosophy and incorporates
some new features, has been created.

In this paper we present and discuss the options and decisions that can be taken about
the digital image formats for the delivering of high-resolution images of museum
publications. In section 1 we will first examine the conventional digital file formats,
discussing their advantages and disadvantages. Section 2 presents and focuses the
new perception of digital image formats, such as FlashPix and JPEG2000, making a
comparison between them. The next section presents a performance test between these
two formats, provides a description and discusses their main advantages and
disadvantages. Finally some conclusions and future scenarios of improvement have
been presented.

2. OVERVIEW OF CONVENTIONAL IMAGE FORMATS

There are some conventional file formats that are used for storage and displaying of
museums in their publications. As it is already mentioned, sometimes, in order to
decrease the file size, they use compression methods. By the term image compression,
it is meant the operation that reduces the data that describe an image. For example, the
compression of eight to one (8:1) means that the size of the compressed image is eight
times smaller than the original one, something that allows the transport of eight
compressed images in the same time that would be required for one uncompressed
image. Digital images contain large amount of redundant information. Due to limits of
storage media and the slow transmission of the images via Internet, compression
reduces the size of a digital image, by eliminating these redundancies and discarding the
non-essential and unnecessary information.

There are two types of compression:

¾ Lossless image compression techniques that preserve the exact data

found in the original image. They provide roughly a two-to-one
compression factor.

¾ Lossy image compression techniques that are used when the

reconstructed image must have a quality of a medium level and it does
not need to be identical to that of the original image. Images appropriate
to lossy format provide compression factors 100-to-one and above.

Two major categories of conventional image formats can be traced:

1. The uncompressed file formats, like TIFF.

TIFF (Tag Image Format)

ADVANTAGES Open standard
Survivability
High resolution
High quality
Lossless LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch) compression5
Good zooming tolerance
DISADVANTAGES Large files
No metadata

Table 1

5
There are not losses, data are corrupted when the user modify the image.
 2. The compressed file formats, like JPEG, GIF and PNG.

JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group)

ADVANTAGES Open standard
Survivability
Interoperability (support of browsers)
Acceptable quality
Small size
Variable compression ratios
DISADVANTAGES Lossy compression6
Poor zooming tolerance
Table 2

GIF (Graphic Image Format)

ADVANTAGES Lossless compression
Small size
DISADVANTAGES Limitation of 256-color depth
Poor quality
Table 3

PNG (Portable Network Graphics)

ADVANTAGES Good for the Web
Lossless compression
Metadata
DISADVANTAGES Not supported from all browsers
It does not support animation
Table 4
The conventional image formats that are used for museum publications have to deal with
problems that are linked with their disadvantages. In case that uncompressed file
formats, like TIFF, are used for images of cultural objects or records with great detail,
images of large size are produced. In this case, the limited data transmission rate
capability of Internet and an intranet is a major barrier for server and users concerning
the speed delivery and quality. In addition to this, there are augmented needs for the
storage of these huge images.

The compressed file formats produce smaller images, but their quality is compromising.
The popular JPEG image format is created in the late 1980’s. It uses lossy compression,
and although it still gives acceptable quality (with variable compression ratios), it shows
poor zooming tolerance and quickly “pixelates”. This is not an issue if the images intend
to be only for demonstration purposes, but it is a major problem if there is the need of
archiving images of museum publications for preservation and future research.

6
Every time the image file is compressed and then saved some information is lost and cannot be recovered.
GIF is a format suitable for very simple graphic elements that do not have more than 256
colors. In a different case, where the image has more than 256 colors and is more
detailed, it suffers from quality degradation. JPEG and GIF image formats do not transfer
metadata information.

The PNG image format has been created and thought as a replacement of GIF. It uses
lossless compression and supports 48-bit true color images. When it is modified and re-
saved, it does not lose any information, like JPEG. However, there is a problem of
incompatibility, because it is not supported by all browsers and also, it does not support
animation, like GIF format does.

3. EMERGING IMAGE FORMATS

Experts have unified their forces, in order to overcome the limitations and solve the
problems of the existing digital image formats. Their efforts have been addressed to the
design of the new digital image formats that will allow the quick delivery of high-
resolution images. Collaborations have been fruitful and a revolutionary way to work with
images has appeared. The new “Russian doll” imaging architecture gives the opportunity
of scalability and interactivity to the user, because multiple resolutions of an image are
stored in a single file and give the chance to progressively transmit an image. Zooming
and panning of the image are allowed. The image quality performance is superior to
existing standards for digital images. Furthermore, the waiting time for the appearance of
the image has been significantly decreased. FlashPix and JPEG2000 are the two image
formats that introduced a new concept for imaging architecture.

3.1 FLASHPIX FORMAT

FlashPix has been developed by Digital Imaging Group that includes Adobe, Canon,
Eastman Kodak Company, Hewlett Packard (HP) Company, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft
Corporation, in collaboration with Live Picture Inc. and has been officially introduced in
June 1996. FlashPix is a hierarchical image format that visually can be described as a
pyramid. The base of the pyramid represents the full image resolution and the top is the
lowest resolution image. A series of sub-resolutions fall in between. The files are stored
at multiple independent resolutions, and each of them is subdivided into square tiles
(Picture 1).

Picture 1 (Courtesy of LivePicture)

These features allow the user to make an area selection specified by a rectangle of
interest and to zoom in, choosing the appropriate resolution. With the conventional
images, when a user zooms in, the image loses in quality. With FlashPix format the
applications do not have to process the entire image, in order to view only a small
section. Additionally, the user has the possibility to zoom and pan to the image. The
original FlashPix file is larger than TIFF and BMP, but only one file is needed instead of
four or more versions of the same image. Each layer is at one-quarter of the previous
layer and is divided to tiles of 64 by 64 pixels. If for example the resolution of an image is
4046 by 3072 pixels (bottom layer), the next will be 2048 by 1536 pixels. The third will be
1024 by 768 pixels and so on, until the last one that will be 64 by 64 pixels.

A lot of programs have the ability to handle FlashPix format. Two of the most known are
Adobe Photoshop and Corel PhotoPaint. However, they need special free plug-in
software that should be downloaded from the Internet. In order to see FlashPix images
using a browser, an additional java applet should be used. Fortunately, this applet is
usually downloaded automatically from the server that serves the images.

The main features of the FlashPix image format can be summarized as follows:
FlashPix is used to provide the high detail which means to deliver very large, high-
resolution images. Quite often, the user does not need most of image data. He just
needs to retrieve information needed for a particular use. This image format can handle
high-quality pictures by providing the chance to navigate through a progressive image
transmission and scalability. An example of this feature can be seen in pictures 2, 3,
4, 5 that depict a Black-Figure Amphora of Leagros Group from the online collection of
Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco that uses FlashPix format for its images (Web 4).

Picture 2 (source: [Web 4])

Picture 3 (source: [Web 4])

Picture 4 (source: [Web 4])

 Picture 5 (source: [Web 4])

FlashPix format is not power hungry. The technical requirements for a PC are modest.
FlashPix format can be manipulated by a standard multimedia PC, with an Intel Pentium
processor with 16 MB of RAM. The application can access the low-resolution image for
sharing and viewing, without having to deal with the high-resolution data of the image.
Consequently, the memory and disk space required to edit images is reduced. It requires
33% more disk storage (when it is uncompressed) than a TIFF file because of extra
resolutions contained in it. Moreover, it needs even less RAM for viewing, almost the
20% that is required by a TIFF file.

FlashPix structured storage format provides compatibility with Microsoft’s OLE

structured storage format and other structured storage paradigms. Structure storage can
be likened to a “file system in a file”. A structured storage file contains both storages
(directories) and streams (files). This feature allows the extensibility of this format, since
developers can add features without converting the image to a new format (Georgoula,
Patias, 2003).

FlashPix tiles can use various ways of compression: They can be single color
compressed, they can use JPEG lossy compression, or they can be uncompressed.

The printing gives the expected quality, inherent to the FlashPix image. All the color
information is stored in the file using a calibrated color space. Everything is maintained
throughout image manipulation and printing.

Additionally, FlashPix gives the opportunity for storing metadata.

If the digital images of the museums shall deliver FlashPix images on the Internet, the
Web server must be running the LivePicture Image Server (Web 2). FlashPix image can
be viewed using a Web browser in a HTML page or it can be seen in a Java Applet
Viewer.

This image format is widely used by museums. More specifically, it has been adopted by
the National Museum of Korea (Web 3), the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (Web
4), the J. Paul Getty Museum (Web 5), the Museums of Vatican (Web 6) and the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Web 7).

“If image is everything, then FlashPix may be everything for images” said Péter Jacsó7.
However, despite the expectations and the support that received, FlashPix format did
not get the reception that was predicted. Some of its features are adopted by JPEG2000
image format.

3.2 JPEG2000 FORMAT

The ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee of Photographic Experts (JPEG) has developed
an international standard for interactivity, under the name JPEG2000. The basic
philosophy of FlashPix that provides the ability to the user to interact with the image, by
panning, scaling and changing its resolution through zoom, has been maintained.
JPEG2000 is part of the International Organization of Standardization; it has become an
international standard (IS) in December 2000. It is an open standard that is designed to
be used by a large number of users.

There are an increasing number of programs that incorporate JPEG2000 to the image
formats they handle. The main ones are Adobe Photoshop and Corel PhotoPaint that
need also a special plug-in software. In order to view JPEG2000 images using a
browser, a specific viewer application should be used. In contrast with FlashPix servers
(who upload the viewer automatically), this viewer must be downloaded manually. So, it
would be convenient if the web sites have a link to this appropriate software.

The main features that make it a very promising image format are:

In JPEG2000 there is the potential of progressive image transmission and scalability.

It has different resolutions of an image in one file and thus image sizes range from
thumbnail to full size of the original image. It allows user interaction with the image,
because it gives the opportunity to randomly access parts of the image, because of its
Region of Interest (ROI) coding.

An important distinction between FlashPix and JPEG2000 format is that the JPEG2000
image can be progressive either by resolution, or by quality. Certain regions of the
images can be stored with better resolution or higher quality than other ones. Each
compressed tile has its own independent resolution hierarchy and also its own
independent progressive quality hierarchy.

It is possible for the user to define an arbitrary shaped Region of Interest (ROI), where
the image quality is enhanced, compared to the quality of the remaining regions and
then the background image outside the ROI gets also sharper until the original image
data is transferred.

A JPEG2000 image can have high compression efficiency. It provides competitive

compression. It is better than FlashPix and JPEG that provide only lossy compression,
because JPEG2000 can have either high quality lossless or lossy compression. In

7
http://www.infotoday.com/IT/jul98/article3.htm
comparison to JPEG, JPEG2000 format has better image quality at the same file size
and even in high compression ratios and 25-35% smaller file sizes. Also, it shows 40%
compression efficiency improvement over the FlashPix format (Web 8).

It is designed taking into account the need for interoperability. JPEG2000 is fully
compatible with previous versions of the format. It is adherent to standards, like XML
and HTTP. It seems as if JPEG2000 image format will also have extendibility, meaning
that it can be extented to another image format in the future. On the other hand, with
FlashPix format there is the danger of technology obsolescence, in case it stops to be
supported, so as reading or displaying such format images would be difficult or even
impossible.

As for comparison with the FlashPix format, JPEG2000 fares well also, concerning
metadata. It has extensive metadata possibilities. It should be noted that JPEG2000
format is XML based metadata.
Additionally, JPEG2000:
• shows error robustness, because it contains mechanisms for defense against
corruption. In case that some of the image data are corrupted, server still
manages to deliver an image;
• allows transmission over wireless communication channels, so it can be
used by systems that are composed of a server that contains information about a
museum exhibition and a mobile unit that transmits them to the visitor; and
• has a security mechanism that protects copyrights, by offering an undistorted
thumbnail viewing and encrypted high resolution viewing from the same file.

Cultural institutions such as the Cultural & Educational Technology Institute in Greece
(Web 2) have used JPEG2000 standard in databases with large amounts of data in ‘Ark
of Refugee Heirloom’ project that records the cultural heritage of a part of the Hellenic
population. The format has also been successfully tested and used for texture data of 3D
models (Figure 6), by a web-based visualization tool that has been developed within the
3D Murale project (Grabner et al., 2003). Furthermore, it has been used in conjunction
with other compression schemes, such as Mixed Raster Content (MRC)8.

8
‘Digital Representation And Compression Of William Blake’s Hand-Colored Engravings’, V. Misic, K.
Kraus, Museums and the Web 2002.
 Picture 6: Frieze that belongs to Heroon of Sagalassos (source: Grabner et al., 2003)

4. TEST PERFORMANCE AND COMPARISON

For the purposes of the comparison of FlashPix and JPEG2000 image formats, a test to
an intranet and the Internet has been implemented.

4.1 PREPARATION OF THE TESTS

An image has been scanned in 600 dpi (dots per inch) and a digital image of 5000 by
5000 pixels has been created. It is then converted to FlashPix and JPEG2000 image
formats accordingly. The produced JPEG2000 test image had 4,47 MB size, whereas
the FlashPix one had 97,4 MB. The difference between the test image sizes is due to the
fact that the "trial version" of the FlashPix server did not allow creation of compressed
images.

Then, two servers have been set up, one for FlashPix and one for JPEG2000, on the
same machine.
For FlashPix there are some servers like ImageMagic (Web 11), iSee Zoom Image
Server (Web 12) or Leadtools Image Server (Web 13) that can serve this image format.
In our case, iSee Zoom Image Server 4.5 (60-day free trial version) has been selected,
since it is a highly flexible and easy-to-use, with extensive documentation and very good
results.

For JPEG2000, the most known servers are Kakadu and JasPer. For our test
implementation the Kakadu server 4.2 has been selected as more simple and easy-to-
use. Also, some parts of Kakadu software are free and can be downloaded from the
Internet (Web 10). For full performance with more options, someone should buy the
whole package.

The system on which the servers set-up, met the minimum requirements for a server
application:
• Microsoft Windows 2000 Server with Service Pack 4
• 256 MB hard disk space for server software
• Additional space for images as required
• 512 MB RAM

4.2 INTRANET AND INTERNET TESTS

The speed tests took place in intranet and Internet environments. In intranet
environment, both server and client PCs were linked into a 10 Mbps LAN. In Internet
environment, in order to test the worst case, the client PC was connected to server using
a 56Kbps PSTN modem. On both environments and tests, client PC required from
server a 500 by 350 pixels region of the test image, in different zoom levels (layers).

The speed delivery of the images in the intranet was so fast that the time could not be
recorded. Actually, all the transfers, for both servers, took less than a second.

The results of our test in the Internet are presented in Table 5:

FlashPix JPEG2000
1st zoom level 55 sec 45 sec
2nd zoom level 47 sec 40 sec
3rd zoom level 23 sec 18 sec
4th zoom level - 49 sec
Table 5
There are not considerable differences in times. Furthermore, it should be noted that
JPEG2000 has greater zoom depth, than FlashPix. Actually, JPEG2000 viewer could
zoom as much as we wanted, in contrast with the FlashPix java viewer which could
show details up to a bottom layer.
 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper aimed at providing adequate information about the digital image formats that
can be used for museum publications. Aspects of old conventional file formats have
been presented. New emerging file formats, FlashPix and the upcoming JPEG2000 that
have been developed to better address issues of compression, quality and speed of
delivery of the images, as well as their advantages and disadvantages have been
mentioned and compared. The results of a performance test and a comparison between
these two image formats, in the Internet have been discussed.

The need for an interactive and scalable progressive imaging system, that will minimize
storage costs, and speed of the image transmission is obvious. FlashPix image format
has a quite good performance, but has also several disadvantages. JPEG2000 is a very
promising image format that incorporates some remarkable aspects of FlashPix format.
Though, it should be taken into consideration that it is still under development. A serious
effort should be undertaken, in order to become widely used. The Internet browsers
should be able to view and more software packages must handle efficiently JPEG2000
images. In addition to these, a careful and extensive documentation of the servers that
are used for serving this image format should be available.

Acknowledgments:

The authors would like to acknowledge the donation of a trial version of Zoom Image
Server by iSee Media Company during the period of this research and Dr Taubman
for his useful information about the Kakadu Server.

Bibliography

1. Daniels M., Is bigger better? Web delivery of high-resolution images from the
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Proceedings of Museums and the Web, 17-19
April 2000.
2. Georgoula O., Patias P., (2003), Visualization Tools Using FlashPix Image
Format, International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and
Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. XXXIV-5/W10.
3. Georgoula O., Patias P., (2002), The Well Promising FlashPix Image Format,
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences, vol., XXXIV, part 5, Com. V, pp.525-529.
4. Grabner M., Wozelka R., Mirchandani M., Schindler K., Web-based visualization
of virtual archaeological sites, 4th International Symposium on Virtual Reality,
Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage (VAST2003), pp. 107-118.
 Web references

Web 1, Museums in the USA, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.museumca.org/usa/alpha.html

Web 2, Live Picture, τελευταία επίσκεψη 5/2/2004,http://www.livepicture.com

Web 3, National Museum of Korea, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.museum.go.kr

Web 4, Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.thinker.org/index.asp

Web 5, Marshak D. S., Seybold P. Group (2003), J. Paul Getty Museum Re-Architects
Technology to Enhance Visitors’ Experience, Sun Consultants and Java Technology
Keys to Next-Generation Architecture, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,
http://www.sun.com/service/about/success/recent/getty4.html

Web 6, Presentazione del Sito Internet, Benvenuti ai Musei Vaticani, τελευταία επίσκεψη
15/5/2004, http://mv.vatican.va/1_CommonFiles/z-store/MV_2003-06-
24_CartellaStampa.PDF

Web 7, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.metmuseum.org

Web 8, Video and Image Processing Laboratory. The JPEG2000 Resource Web Page,
τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004, http://stargate.ecn.purdue.edu/~ips/tutorials/j2k/

Web 9, Politou E. A.,. Pavlidis G. P., Chamzas Ch. (2003), JPEG2000 and the
dissemination of cultural heritage over the Internet, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,
http://ipml.ee.duth.gr/~chamzas/chamzas_pdfs%5Cpublications%5C200403_IEEE_JPE
G2000.pdf

Web 10, Kakadu Software, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.kakadusoftware.com/

Web 11, ImageMagick.org, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.imagemagick.org/www/install.html

Web 12, iSee Zoom Image Server, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.iseemedia.com/zoom/downloads.html

Web 13, LEADTOOLS, τελευταία επίσκεψη 15/5/2004,

http://www.leadtools.com/sdk/raster/formats/raster-format-fpx.htm