Date sent: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 15:09:58 -0400
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Johnny Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color
spaces for differentpurposes)
> 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?
yes
> In any case, does the amount of
> reduction in the file size using lzw compression vary considerably with the
> content?
yes; if there are many pixels of same color, image will compress more.
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
Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*?
That's unusual.
Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL
500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-540-1308 http://www.doogle.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
