At 01:20 PM 6/9/02 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote: >Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist >and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF >files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress >TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG >compression at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of >the file they are getting.
Hi Laurie, Is it not lzw compression instead of lwz? In any case, does the amount of reduction in the file size using lzw compression vary considerably with the content? The reason I ask is that I just compared a scanned photograph of 3591 X 5472 pixel size saved in several formats. The results were: TIFF 36,498 kb TIFF with lwz compression 36, 523 kb JPG @ Photoshop level 12 17,633 kb Your comment that lzw compressed TIFF files are as small as JPGs made me wonder if you are working with graphic files and if they offer better compression than photos. Later, Johnny __________________________ Johnny Johnson Lilburn, GA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body