On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Jay Smith <j...@jaysmith.com> wrote: > a) For images under (for example) 50 MB in size, and on systems that are > modern, fast, and with lots of memory, is there an approximate rule of > thumb regarding how much longer opening and saving operations will take?
I've never benchmarked this - I'm sure there is some performance hit, but not sure how much. > b) (Though not a Gimp issue) Are there any implications using > LZW-compressed TIFF images in other applications? Specifically, I use > Perl scripts and ImageMagick to create four different sizes of JPEGs > from each TIFF file. Do such operations care whether or not a TIFF file > has been LZW compressed? Since the LZW patent wars are finally over I would not expect any problems reading/writing LZW compression. I've never had any LZW issues with ImageMagick. > c) Other than saving disk space and/or reducing file transmission time > in the case of uploading/downloading, are there any particular reasons > to use (or not to use) LZW compression? As far as I see it (and I'm no expert, just someone who has some experience with various printing methods) it's a trade-off between file size and processing. I use LZW for most TIFFs, but if - hypothetically - you had a massive amount of very small TIFF files that needed lots of read/write operations done on them, you might look at running some benchmarks. I just scanned the Wikipedia entry on TIFF and it seems pretty accurate to me (again no expert here). Although I had no idea that the third and fourth bytes equal 42 "for its deep philosophical significance" ;) My 0.02, Chris _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
