I'm not sure what this debate is all about but I did a very quick test using Photoshop CS2 and the standard UNIX zip implementation in Mac OS X.
- Took a typical JPEG image file directly out of the Fuji F30. - Opened in Photoshop and Save As to a TIFF file, uncompressed. - Zipped the Tiff file. - Save As the same file to a LZW compressed TIFF. - Zipped the TIFFz file. - Save As the same file to a Zip compressed TIFF. - Zipped the TIFFzip file. Here are the results: (bytes - file name) tiff 18281440 DSCF0235.tif 11001877 DSCF0235.tif.zip tiff with LZ compression 8420252 DSCF0235z.tif 8371603 DSCF0235z.tif.zip tiff with zip compression 7687904 DSCF0235zip.tif 7666264 DSCF0235zip.tif.zip In all cases, the TIFF with compression produces a smaller file size, and in all cases doing compression with zip afterwards reduces the file size by a small amount further. Zip compression of the uncompressed tiff runs about 40%, zip compression of the compressed formats runs less than 1%. Godfrey On Sep 10, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > It hasn't worked like that for me and for numerous other people. > Zipping a > TIFF has always resulted in a file that was the same size or slightly > larger than the original. > >> From: Jan van Wijk > >> If you save an inage as UNCOMPRESSED TIFF from Photoshop, >> e regular ZIP will be able to compress it down, taking perhaps upto >> 40% of the size off (heavily depending on image content/detail :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
