Original Poster here.. This jpeg vs tiff question is pretty important to me. My personal experience with jpegs is that the inherent nature of how the compression it uses works, very little quantities of data loss equate with the Functional Loss of the image. My limited knowledge of the 'nature' of TIFF is that (to some extent) it is more resistant to losing the entire image if data describing specific pixels is lost or compromised. Does anyone know if this is correct?
A further question I have is that the TIFF 'standards' site I was looking at indicates that a previously 'patented' compression option inside of TIFF -I believe the LZW option- was transfered to the public domain -or something similar- so it is considered an open standard that Archive and Library folks and companies are more comfortable using it. My question is whether the LossLess Internal File Compression option makes the individual files be more at risk in the presence of 'partial' file loss? :-) Richard On Jan 7, 2:18 pm, Doug McNutt <dougl...@macnauchtan.com> wrote: > At 13:12 -0500 1/7/09, Dan wrote: > > >At 8:36 AM -0700 1/7/2009, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > >>JPEG is also an ISO standard, and open source implementations exist. > > >But apparently it's not a fully free public standard? You have to > >pay the licensing fee for JPEG2000. > > JPEG 2000 has an option for 12 bit resolution which might be > important to purists who are into "perfect" rendition of "real film". > > DICOM, the open format for medical graphics is also available though > it is intrinsically monochrome - like an X-ray. Color information can > be included by making linked red, blue, and green files. The medical > folks are slowly moving toward JPEG 2000. I should hope that they > also care about images at least a lifetime old. > > And while I'm at it, RAW formats are uncompressed representations of > pixel values. Specifying the format is little more than providing the > bit-length of a pixel, (8, 12, 24, 32,. . .) and the number of pixels > that are in one complete scan line. A file of that sort would be far > easier to figure out, next century on Mars, than the discrete 16x16 > two-dimensional cosine transforms of a JPEG. > > -- > > --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. > <-- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to g3-5-list-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
