Tim Au Yeung wrote:
Now I get it. I wasn't arguing against tiff--just not understanding some things about it.Hi Matt, If that's true, that's truly great. I will look into it. Thanks!I don't have a copy of the standard in front of me and what it specifies as a part of the standard in terms of compression so if someone else wants to comment but I suspect that compression is allowed as part of the specification. As Alan Newman pointed out, not all tools handle compressed TIFFs nicely. So that's an issue sometimes. I had no idea. Thanks.One thing to consider is the difference between ideal practice and best-possible practice recommendations -- in a ideal situation, you eliminate all complex encoding (including compression) so that the final file is (as much as possible) almost human readable. That way, there is the possibility of "deducing" the layout of the file without any sort of key or guide. Realistically, this is a terribly inefficient way of storing data (see XML for examples) that often conflicts with the on-the-ground experience of practitioners. I wouldn't eliminate compression from the toolbox of practitioners wanting to implement a repository as it may be necessary (High definition video, for instance, is completely unrealistic to store in an uncompressed form).A final thing to note is that RAW files often already have compression, --Matt |
"matt 5.vcf" (missing attachment)
--- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected]
