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
Gimp-user mailing list