Questions on film scanning, TIF files

writes:

I thought that this was odd, because the size of the
images themselves were: 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs.

This is because it’s 16 bits per colour channel, which means every RGB color pixel is made of 3*16 = 48 bits, which happens to be 6 bytes. If you scanned monochrome you would be looking at 46 megabyte pictures..

wrote in message

Dear Experts,

….

I scanned at 16 Bit, used Digital ICE, and saved
in TIF format.

Interestingly, the file sizes were 137 megs big!

I thought that this was odd, because the size of the
images themselves were: 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs.

In this situation, multiply by a factor of 6 bytes per pixel to convert megapixels to megabytes: a factor of 3 for each of the red, green, and blue channels, and a factor of 2 for 16 bit mode.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
news:0zPsh.62965

In this situation, multiply by a factor of 6 bytes per pixel to convert megapixels to megabytes: a factor of 3 for each of the red, green, and blue channels, and a factor of 2 for 16 bit mode.
—

How many bytes-per-pixel are digital cameras? My own scanner (3600×3600 ppi) produces 16-bit files of about 103 meg–much larger than even the highest-resolution digital camera.

jeremy wrote:

In this situation, multiply by a factor of 6 bytes per pixel to convert megapixels to megabytes: a factor of 3 for each of the red, green, and blue channels, and a factor of 2 for 16 bit mode.
—

How many bytes-per-pixel are digital cameras? My own scanner (3600×3600 ppi) produces 16-bit files of about 103 meg–much larger than even the highest-resolution digital camera.

digital cameras mostly store the images in jpg files, which apply lossy

compression to the data. Hence the much smaller files. If you use the

so-called RAW mode in a digital camera, then you end up with similar sized
files to what you get with a scanner.

you can go both ways: save scanner output as jpg, in which case you see a similar reduction in size.

All sorts of theories and ideas on why it should or should not be done one
way or the other.

In very general terms: if you want to keep a pristine copy of the scanner output or
digital camera capture for further post-processing, then use TIFF or RAW to keep
the image, respectively.

If you don’t plan to do any further post-procesing, then jpg is perfectly fine and
will result in much less disk space being used.

You may also use jpg as the output of any post-processing from TIFF or RAW.

HTH

[ Excessive crossposting trimmed ]
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.periphs.scanners.] On 21 Jan 2007 11:43:57 -0800, staggered into the
Black Sun and said:

I scanned at 16 Bit, used Digital ICE, and saved in TIF format. The
[files] were 137 megs! The images themselves were 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs. If I scan at 8 bit, it about 1/2 the size.

Why is the TIF file almost 6 times the size of the image size?

3946 pixels wide * 5959 pixels high * 6 bytes/pixel (16 bits/channel, R, G, B channels)= 134M uncompressed. If you save with LZW compression, you might reduce the size of the images to ~70M, depending on lots of factors. Whether the software you’re using can save things in LZW is anyone’s guess.

What other information is being stored in TIF? What are the advantages of TIF format?

TIFF files can store a lot of essentially arbitrary data in tags, which are defined in great detail in the TIFF format specs. Every TIFF-writing app generally defines Image Length, Image Width, Resolution (dpi or dpcm), Compression, and Bits/Sample. A bunch of other less frequently-used tags like Color Profile have been defined by SGI and the libtiff guys, and there are some apps (like TypeReader 6) that store app-specific info in TIFF tags that are not officially defined.

For advantages, it’s mostly about the tags and platform independence. Many of the things stored in the tags are important in various types of image processing, and the structure of TIFF means the tags aren’t going to get lost (as could happen with other ways of encoding that data). TIFF can also store multiple images in 1 file ("multipage TIFF") which can be useful in certain circumstances.

libtiff provides a uniform way to get at the raw bitmap(s) and tag info, no matter what OS or arch you’re using, so TIFF is essentially future-proof. Images stored in formats that aren’t Open[0] are going to be difficult to read when the commercial software provider you’re using decides that Format 0.1 is obsolete and that you have to give them $ for the privilege of reading your data. This is why a lot of people store archival copies of images in TIFF. HTH,

[0] JPEG, PNG, and TIFF are open, BMP and GIF are well-understood if not technically completely open.

—
"I was court-martialled in my absence, and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in my absence." –Brendan F. Behan
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:43:57 -0800, photoguy_222 wrote:

Dear Experts,

Recently, I bought a Nikon coolscan 5000, and
did some scanning of some 35mm transparencies and negs.

I scanned at 16 Bit, used Digital ICE, and saved
in TIF format.

Interestingly, the file sizes were 137 megs big!

I thought that this was odd, because the size of the
images themselves were: 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs.

If I scan at 8 bit, it about 1/2 the size.

Why is the TIF file almost 6 times the size of
the image size? What other information
is being stored in TIF?

Mainly because you specified a 16 bit tif. 16 bits is two bytes of information for each channel R, G, B: 2 times three is six – ergo size is six times the total number of pixels.

What are the advantages of TIF format?

No loss of information.

Thanks a lot

(Note: I’m really NOT asking how to get smaller file sizes.)

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:10:10 +0000, jeremy wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
news:0zPsh.62965

In this situation, multiply by a factor of 6 bytes per pixel to convert megapixels to megabytes: a factor of 3 for each of the red, green, and blue channels, and a factor of 2 for 16 bit mode.
—

How many bytes-per-pixel are digital cameras? My own scanner (3600×3600 ppi) produces 16-bit files of about 103 meg–much larger than even the highest-resolution digital camera.

My calculations show 3600x3600x6 = 77mb. Assuming 16 bits for each color channel. I can’t see how you get 103mb, unless you’re using a format which might include a 16 bit alpha channel, as well.

ray wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:10:10 +0000, jeremy wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
news:0zPsh.62965

In this situation, multiply by a factor of 6 bytes per pixel to convert megapixels to megabytes: a factor of 3 for each of the red, green, and blue channels, and a factor of 2 for 16 bit mode.
—

How many bytes-per-pixel are digital cameras? My own scanner (3600×3600 ppi) produces 16-bit files of about 103 meg–much larger than even the highest-resolution digital camera.

My calculations show 3600x3600x6 = 77mb. Assuming 16 bits for each color channel. I can’t see how you get 103mb, unless you’re using a format which might include a 16 bit alpha channel, as well.

He said 3600 ppi, not 3600 pixels, I come out with 104,136,400 for a full frame scan at 3600 ppi
and 16 bits / color.

Of course he better then the hightest-resolution digital camera is a bit off.

Scott

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:34:43 -0800, Scott W wrote:

ray wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:10:10 +0000, jeremy wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
news:0zPsh.62965

In this situation, multiply by a factor of 6 bytes per pixel to convert megapixels to megabytes: a factor of 3 for each of the red, green, and blue channels, and a factor of 2 for 16 bit mode.
—

How many bytes-per-pixel are digital cameras? My own scanner (3600×3600 ppi) produces 16-bit files of about 103 meg–much larger than even the highest-resolution digital camera.

My calculations show 3600x3600x6 = 77mb. Assuming 16 bits for each color channel. I can’t see how you get 103mb, unless you’re using a format which might include a 16 bit alpha channel, as well.

He said 3600 ppi, not 3600 pixels, I come out with 104,136,400 for a full frame scan at 3600 ppi
and 16 bits / color.

Of course he better then the hightest-resolution digital camera is a bit off.

Scott

You’re right, of course. In which case the size of the file is related to the size of the image.

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.

Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

This size (137 MB) is a problem as many of us have thousands of photos. The fact is that with a file size of 1/10 of what you have, you can do anything that you are ever likely to want to do.

wrote:

Dear Experts,

Recently, I bought a Nikon coolscan 5000, and
did some scanning of some 35mm transparencies and negs.

I scanned at 16 Bit, used Digital ICE, and saved
in TIF format.

Interestingly, the file sizes were 137 megs big!

I thought that this was odd, because the size of the
images themselves were: 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs.

If I scan at 8 bit, it about 1/2 the size.

Why is the TIF file almost 6 times the size of
the image size? What other information
is being stored in TIF?

What are the advantages of TIF format?

Thanks a lot

(Note: I’m really NOT asking how to get smaller file sizes.)

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:01:11 -0500, Barry Watzman
wrote:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.

Others haven’t top poasted…why are you? Are you stupid or do you just get yer jollies off on fucking up thread continuity?

Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding. Further, while I’m sure an AMATEUR like you won’t be able to notice the difference of a JPEG with a compression factor of say 10, an EXPERIENCED graphic designer most certainly CAN tell that there’s a BIG difference. And if you ever decide to start making PRINTS of your photos…well at that point even an AMATEUR like yourself should be able to notice a pretty big difference…unless you plan on just shrinking them down.

This size (137 MB) is a problem as many of us have thousands of photos. The fact is that with a file size of 1/10 of what you have, you can do anything that you are ever likely to want to do.

Actually considering how cheap 400 gig drives are right now, coupled with the fact that blank DVDs are also ass cheap, I don’t see that storing your photos in a lossless format would be any problem at all.

Personally though I use PNG myself as opposed to TIFF.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:01:11 -0500, Barry Watzman
wrote:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.

Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding. Further, while I’m sure an AMATEUR like you won’t be able to notice the difference of a JPEG with a compression factor of say 10, an EXPERIENCED graphic designer most certainly CAN tell that there’s a BIG difference. And if you ever decide to start making PRINTS of your photos…well at that point even an AMATEUR like yourself should be able to notice a pretty big difference…unless you plan on just shrinking them down.

I don’t see how to invoke this hypothetical lossless encoding from Photoshop or any other program I have. Any suggestions?

And I notice that several professional labs ask that you upload your files for printing *in jpeg form* at quality level 10, and promise that nobody will ever see the difference.

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:01:11 -0500, Barry Watzman
wrote:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.

Others haven’t top poasted…why are you? Are you stupid or do you just get yer jollies off on fucking up thread continuity?

Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding. Further, while I’m sure an AMATEUR like you won’t be able to notice the difference of a JPEG with a compression factor of say 10, an EXPERIENCED graphic designer most certainly CAN tell that there’s a BIG difference. And if you ever decide to start making PRINTS of your photos…well at that point even an AMATEUR like yourself should be able to notice a pretty big difference…unless you plan on just shrinking them down.

At 10 to 1 you will never see the difference in a print, this photo was compressed at 10 to 1 and you have to look very closely to see any difference with the original at all.
http://www.sewcon.com/largephotos/jpeg_image_10_to_1_compres s.jpg

What is more that is 1/20 the size of a 16 bit / color tiff.

No way am I going to spend the time uploading a 16 bit / color tiff when the jpeg will work just as well, even at 10 to 1 compression.

Scott

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a program which supports it.

"if" wrote in message

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a program which supports it.

JPEG 2000 supports it, but there seems to be little interest in it. Traditional JPG can be set to lose very little, but there is at very least some tiny amount of loss each time the file is saved.

On 23 Jan 2007 22:21:00 GMT, if wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a program which supports it.

Uh, last I checked both Paint Shop Pro (since at least version 9) and Photoshop (since at least ver CS2) both support lossless JPEG encoding…and in fact I’m also fairly certain that there are MANY camera manufacturers who offer lossless JPEG encoding as an alternative to RAW.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:08:09 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:01:11 -0500, Barry Watzman
wrote:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.

Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding. Further, while I’m sure an AMATEUR like you won’t be able to notice the difference of a JPEG with a compression factor of say 10, an EXPERIENCED graphic designer most certainly CAN tell that there’s a BIG difference. And if you ever decide to start making PRINTS of your photos…well at that point even an AMATEUR like yourself should be able to notice a pretty big difference…unless you plan on just shrinking them down.

I don’t see how to invoke this hypothetical lossless encoding from Photoshop or any other program I have. Any suggestions?

And I notice that several professional labs ask that you upload your files for printing *in jpeg form* at quality level 10, and promise that nobody will ever see the difference.

Well like I said, if yer an AMATEUR…you probably won’t notice a difference. It’s sort of like, when I first started doing video capture stuff, hell to me 320×240 at 2,000kbps seemed like really good quality…but the thing is, the more of it I did and the more I exposed myself to digital video…the higher my standards became…the more I started to notice the artifacting, the loss in color quality, the rainbowing, the block noise, etc, etc, etc. That’s why I ALWAYS recommend to people that they use the highest quality that’s available/possible…it’s not for the deficiency that you’re dribbling at now…it’s for the regret you’ll gain with experience and evolving standards and equipment.

One of the most unfortunate instances of that in my life was when my parents took all of the historical family video footage (in Super8) and had this "professional" outfit convert the material to VHS (this was back in the early 80s). They told my parents that there wouldn’t be any noticeable loss in quality…and on the shit grade TVs that were available at the time…it’s true, one couldn’t notice much difference…so they converted em and then got rid of the originals…and for those that aren’t familiar, the process at the time essentially destroyed over HALF of the original film quality which is VERY MUCH noticeable on the high definition displays of today.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On 23 Jan 2007 12:36:30 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:01:11 -0500, Barry Watzman
wrote:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.

Others haven’t top poasted…why are you? Are you stupid or do you just get yer jollies off on fucking up thread continuity?

Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding. Further, while I’m sure an AMATEUR like you won’t be able to notice the difference of a JPEG with a compression factor of say 10, an EXPERIENCED graphic designer most certainly CAN tell that there’s a BIG difference. And if you ever decide to start making PRINTS of your photos…well at that point even an AMATEUR like yourself should be able to notice a pretty big difference…unless you plan on just shrinking them down.

At 10 to 1 you will never see the difference in a print, this photo was compressed at 10 to 1 and you have to look very closely to see any difference with the original at all.
http://www.sewcon.com/largephotos/jpeg_image_10_to_1_compres s.jpg
What is more that is 1/20 the size of a 16 bit / color tiff.
No way am I going to spend the time uploading a 16 bit / color tiff when the jpeg will work just as well, even at 10 to 1 compression.

Depends entirely on what you’re doing with it. It gets pretty specific too, I mean let’s say yer gonna print it…well do you plan on blowing it up? Shrinking it? What kind of printer will it be printed on? What kind of paper will you be using?

Overall though, if it’s important to you…you would be more than foolish to settle for anything less than the best possible quality that you can get. Even if it takes up a couple hundred
megabytes…what’s it gonna cost you…a couple cents worth of space on a blank DVD?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:11:54 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Depends entirely on what you’re doing with it. It gets pretty specific too, I mean let’s say yer gonna print it…well do you plan on blowing it up? Shrinking it? What kind of printer will it be printed on? What kind of paper will you be using?

One printer makes them larger and one printer makes them small, and the ones your mother prints for you don’t do anything at all.

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!"

Continue chasing those white rabbits, harebrain.

In article ,
"Scott W" wrote:

At 10 to 1 you will never see the difference in a print, this photo was compressed at 10 to 1 and you have to look very closely to see any difference with the original at all.

At 10 to 1, **you** will never see the difference. I do.

But that’s not the most important part of the reason not to use JPEG as a working format. Not only is JPEG lossy, but the loss is cumulative. If you open a JPEG and re-save it, you get more loss. Open and re-save again, you get still further loss.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:33:45 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:11:54 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Depends entirely on what you’re doing with it. It gets pretty specific too, I mean let’s say yer gonna print it…well do you plan on blowing it up? Shrinking it? What kind of printer will it be printed on? What kind of paper will you be using?

One printer makes them larger and one printer makes them small, and the ones your mother prints for you don’t do anything at all.

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!"

Continue chasing those white rabbits, harebrain.

Oh look, a new Hatter Addict, just what I always wanted!

I shall hence forth call him "ASS".

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On 23 Jan 2007 22:21:00 GMT, if wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a program which supports it.

Uh, last I checked both Paint Shop Pro (since at least version 9) and Photoshop (since at least ver CS2) both support lossless JPEG encoding…and in fact I’m also fairly certain that there are MANY camera manufacturers who offer lossless JPEG encoding as an alternative to RAW.

Photoshop CS2 has no apparent lossless jpeg option; where do you think it is? There’s no special checkbox in the jpeg dialog or the save dialog, and the top quality level isn’t identified as being qualitatively different from the two below it.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:21:00 +0000, if wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a program which supports it.

The Gimp.

—
Neil
Reverse ‘r’ and ‘a’, delete ‘l’ for email.

"Neil Ellwood" wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:21:00 +0000, if wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a
program which supports it.

The Gimp.

Great. It’ll produce files no other program can read. Lovely.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:54:39 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On 23 Jan 2007 22:21:00 GMT, if wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a program which supports it.

Uh, last I checked both Paint Shop Pro (since at least version 9) and Photoshop (since at least ver CS2) both support lossless JPEG encoding…and in fact I’m also fairly certain that there are MANY camera manufacturers who offer lossless JPEG encoding as an alternative to RAW.

Photoshop CS2 has no apparent lossless jpeg option; where do you think it is? There’s no special checkbox in the jpeg dialog or the save dialog, and the top quality level isn’t identified as being qualitatively different from the two below it.

*checks*

Hrmmm…well maybe not. Although I recall at some point I was debating with someone over how much Photoshop sucks balls in comparison Paintshop and I remember mentioning all the file format options there are in Paintshop that Photoshop doesn’t have and I thought they mentioned some way of saving lossless JPEGs in Photoshop…maybe not though. *shrugs*

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:45:23 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Neil Ellwood" wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:21:00 +0000, if wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a
program which supports it.

The Gimp.

Great. It’ll produce files no other program can read. Lovely.

Uh, anything that can read/display JPEGs can read/display lossless JPEG files you stupid goober. So far we’ve got Gimp and Paint Shop Pro than can handle SAVING lossless JPEG files (reading them was never an issue, despite what lil Davey is retarding off on). I checked Photoshop CS2 in both "save as" and in "save for web" (only Adobe would be so fuckwitted with their interface to have such a confusing separation) and neither lets you save lossless JPEGs. Oh well, Adobe Photoshop proves itself as the inferior, overly expensive product option once again.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:45:23 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a
program which supports it.

The Gimp.

Great. It’ll produce files no other program can read. Lovely.

If it’s the JPEG2000 lossless encoding mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Irfanview also supports that format. Ain’t that loverly?

"David J. Littleboy" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

"Neil Ellwood" wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:21:00 +0000, if wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a
program which supports it.

The Gimp.

Great. It’ll produce files no other program can read. Lovely.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Actually it is hard to find a current image editor program that does n o t support the JPEG 2000 file format, the only one I have is the Arcsoft stuff that comes with Canon cameras. Even Nero PhotoSnap supports JPEG 2000. However there is no camera on the market that generates JPEG 2000 files. If you do not need to store 48 bit resolution it might be a good alternative to TIFF for scans. If you want to just scan and store and process later, you need that 48 bit resolution. With most slides shot on ISO 100 and higher sensitivity film 3600 dpi is already overkill, I can see grain on ISO 200 slides when I scan them at 2400 dpi. I think that reducing scan resolution to a value that resembles the detail present on the slides can shrink the files a bit, also most programs allow lossless LZW compression of TIFF files.

ASAAR wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:45:23 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to

see

a program which supports it.

The Gimp.

Great. It’ll produce files no other program can read. Lovely.

If it’s the JPEG2000 lossless encoding mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Irfanview also supports that format. Ain’t that loverly?

So it does. Unfortunately when it come to saving images Irfanview’s JPEG2000 plugin is nagware and puts up a registration box every time you save an image (it is also limited to 640×480 images which makes it basically demo-ware). Maybe the lossless algorithm is patented, that would explain the lack of takeup.

On 24 Jan 2007 20:47:09 GMT, if wrote:

Great. It’ll produce files no other program can read. Lovely.

If it’s the JPEG2000 lossless encoding mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Irfanview also supports that format. Ain’t that loverly?

So it does. Unfortunately when it come to saving images Irfanview’s JPEG2000 plugin is nagware and puts up a registration box every time you save an image (it is also limited to 640×480 images which makes it basically demo-ware). Maybe the lossless algorithm is patented, that would explain the lack of takeup.

Still, for those having a need to use JPEG2000 and don’t mind registering/paying for the non-crippled plugin, having the supplied plugin would be a big help, saving time searching the internet for a JPEG2000 solution. But this problem you mentioned gets in the way of those trying to *save* in that format. DJL’s gripe is that no program other than the Gimp could *read* that format. I don’t know whether Irfanview has native support for reading JPEG2000 files, ie, without needing a plugin, but it might. I don’t plan on using that format so whether Irfanview is or isn’t compatible with it doesn’t matter to me. Making uninformed, bias tinged pronouncements writing off that format seems like a poor use of one’s time. Some might even be tempted to call it insanely stupid. <g>

On 24 Jan 2007 14:11:34 -0800, Scott W wrote:

If it’s the JPEG2000 lossless encoding mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Irfanview also supports that format. Ain’t that loverly?

. . .

The original claim was that jpeg could be saved lossless, no talk about jpeg2000.

The OP may not have mentioned JPEG2000, but it was (as I said) mentioned later in this thread. Perhaps you missed it, or are you trying to say that nothing may be discussed in a thread if it isn’t mentioned by the OP? FWIW, from checking header references it appears that the OP was a googlegrouper, and as sometimes occurs with that source, that message never arrived here. This is one that did arrive, and it contains the JPEG2000 reference I mentioned:

From: "jeremy"
Subject: Re: Questions on film scanning, TIF files
Message-ID: <1Mxth.4230$>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:29:49 GMT

"if" wrote in message

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

WRONG! JPEG supports lossless encoding.

Whilst the JPEG standard provides for lossless encoding, I’ve yet to see a program which supports it.

JPEG 2000 supports it, but there seems to be little interest in it. Traditional JPG can be set to lose very little, but there is at very least some tiny amount of loss each time the file is saved.

On 2007-01-21 22:01:11 -0400, Barry Watzman said:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.
Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

This size (137 MB) is a problem as many of us have thousands of photos. The fact is that with a file size of 1/10 of what you have, you can do anything that you are ever likely to want to do.

wrote:

Dear Experts,

Recently, I bought a Nikon coolscan 5000, and
did some scanning of some 35mm transparencies and negs.

I scanned at 16 Bit, used Digital ICE, and saved
in TIF format.

Interestingly, the file sizes were 137 megs big!

I thought that this was odd, because the size of the
images themselves were: 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs.

If I scan at 8 bit, it about 1/2 the size.

Why is the TIF file almost 6 times the size of
the image size? What other information
is being stored in TIF?

What are the advantages of TIF format?

Thanks a lot

(Note: I’m really NOT asking how to get smaller file sizes.)

Any professional digital photographer that sends JPG to any sort of Ad Agency or design firm for color correction and then print on Magazine, billboard or litho press jobs, should be shot and hung. We need way more information to edit the photos and manipulate them than to print them with decent results. Look at your histogram in photoshop and see for yourself. It’s called combing and JPG is by far inferior to TIF or raw. The JPG compression strips out pixels… even at 10 setting (max). It destroys valuable information for proper color correcting and must be stopped!!!

JPG should be used only for family portrait studios and amateurs that can’t afford space, but in the pro world, JPG is shunned. Very much disliked and you will lose respect among the adverstising world.

—
Welcome to Papa Joe’s

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:31:37 -0400, Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

Any professional digital photographer that sends JPG to any sort of Ad Agency or design firm for color correction and then print on Magazine, billboard or litho press jobs, should be shot and hung. We need way more information to edit the photos and manipulate them than to print them with decent results. Look at your histogram in photoshop and see for yourself. It’s called combing and JPG is by far inferior to TIF or raw. The JPG compression strips out pixels… even at 10 setting (max). It destroys valuable information for proper color correcting and must be stopped!!!

JPG should be used only for family portrait studios and amateurs that can’t afford space, but in the pro world, JPG is shunned. Very much disliked and you will lose respect among the adverstising world.

Well unless you were using lossless JPG encoding. Here’s a neat lil comparison:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Image_Format_Compa rison/

The base image is a palette based graphic with 30 colors. I’m using Paint Shop Pro 9 for the file saving (using other
tools/techniques/encoding schemes/etc it’s possible to get slightly lower file sizes, but the general differences between them will remain the same).

As far as overall compression whilst maintaining the truest level of color and detail to the original…PNG comes out on top at a mere 768 bytes. GIF comes in second at 1.48 kilobytes. TIFF is third at 2.82 kilobytes.

And, as expected, JPG comes in DEAD LAST:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Image_Format_Compa rison/Image_Test_-_JPG_No_Compression.jpg

Using ZERO COMPRESSION it gives us a file size of 5.47 kilobytes and COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE COLOR QUALITY:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/Image_Format_Compa rison/Destroyed_Color.png

It turns a SINGLE COLORED background into FIFTY ONE DIFFERENT COLORS…and the ORIGINAL COLOR…it’s NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM! o_O

Obviously this effect is MUCH easier to see on palette based images, but just try and image the level of original color destruction that’s taking place on a photographic image even when using NO COMPRESSION.

Like the last poster said…if yer using JPEG, even at no compression (not including lossless encoding) yer pretty much a dribbling amateur who doesn’t know what he/she’s doing.

PNG overall I feel is the best option, it achieves a significantly higher level of compression over TIF with true color images, it supports palette based encoding which allows you HUGE levels of compression on palette based images. It also supports single color and alpha transparencies. And it’s very much web friendly (where as TIF is just…well it’s not). The only thing TIF really has going for it is CMYK color preservation…but then at that point why not just use teh PS or PSP format and then you get all sorts of extras like layer saving?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"You’re only one of the best if you’re striving to become one of the best."

"I didn’t make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you with it."

"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters – Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know…oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass…burrs ‘n such…mmmm…"

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage, endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror…but you don’t get sent to me…I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I’d want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid. Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

"Scott W" wrote:

http://www.sewcon.com/largephotos/jpeg_image_10_to_1_compres s.jpg

Is that Gastineau Channel by any chance?

—
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message

On 2007-01-21 22:01:11 -0400, Barry Watzman
said:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.
Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

This size (137 MB) is a problem as many of us have thousands of photos. The fact is that with a file size of 1/10 of what you have, you can do anything that you are ever likely to want to do.

wrote:

Dear Experts,

Recently, I bought a Nikon coolscan 5000, and
did some scanning of some 35mm transparencies and negs.

I scanned at 16 Bit, used Digital ICE, and saved
in TIF format.

Interestingly, the file sizes were 137 megs big!

I thought that this was odd, because the size of the
images themselves were: 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs.

If I scan at 8 bit, it about 1/2 the size.

Why is the TIF file almost 6 times the size of
the image size? What other information
is being stored in TIF?

What are the advantages of TIF format?

Thanks a lot

(Note: I’m really NOT asking how to get smaller file sizes.)

Any professional digital photographer that sends JPG to any sort of Ad Agency or design firm for color correction and then print on Magazine, billboard or litho press jobs, should be shot and hung. We need way more information to edit the photos and manipulate them than to print them with decent results. Look at your histogram in photoshop and see for yourself. It’s called combing and JPG is by far inferior to TIF or raw. The JPG compression strips out pixels… even at 10 setting (max). It destroys valuable information for proper color correcting and must be stopped!!!
JPG should be used only for family portrait studios and amateurs that can’t afford space, but in the pro world, JPG is shunned. Very much disliked and you will lose respect among the adverstising world.
—
Welcome to Papa Joe’

OK I have sent the same print job in both tiff and jpeg formats with no visible differences in reproduction
In most cases the print house asks specifically for a jpg at 300 res in CMYK and to size of print (for CD covers and labels, did one poster, many postcards and business cards this way)

As I have always felt this format unsuitable for preparing printwork, as you do, I always save my jobs in TIFF- flattened not compressed. (I save all my layers in PSD in case of changes)
I also hear that all text type should not be flattened into the work in PS but to use Illy or In Design would be better to keep vectored text. But no, they do not want that!!
are you a printer Joe?
Maybe that is only cheap print jobs? you would consider sub-standard?

I felt that the TIFF was superior and was surprised they did not care to use it
I make sure to encode the icc in my jpg now
and use maximum not jpg high
the file size is not really any smaller than the TIFF
so it does not save any ftp time
most do not want to wait for a CD to arrive by mail with larger editable files as PSD.
I have rarely sent a print job that does not need adjustments to type or color etc.so it really does not save any time for me to change it and re save and re send it

as for the advertising world well most art directors know squat about formats of photos, or how to color-correct them
sad but true
I would be happy if they left the final retouching to those who created the pictures but they seem to prefer to upload the jpegs direct to their laptops and go home and work on them same day. I would not dare give them RAW. Who knows what they would do?

I can recall about 2-4 print jobs in 20 years I have ever been pleased with in terms of good, respectful of the photo art direction and retouching done well, with beautiful printing. In most cases I just sigh and think what a waste of beautiful pictures. And I put my own prints from the shoot that I like in the portfolio.

I find commercial clients care more about how much will this cost (more like how cheap)
and how fast can you shoot and deliver
of course the poor AD and CD’s have to get approval on their work from a business group with zero knowledge of graphic design who always pick the worst images and want a bunch of tacky text and blurbs all over the place, or worse make cutouts of everything you shot and turn it into some tacky collage…….

rant over

On 2007-01-25 17:27:25 -0400, "KatWoman"
said:

"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message

On 2007-01-21 22:01:11 -0400, Barry Watzman
said:

Others have already explained how you got a 137 megabyte file.
Yes, JPEG is "lossy compression", but just a tiny bit of compression … which you will NEVER be able to detect, at all, in any way … will produce a HUGE reduction in file size (as much as 90%) while retaining both the resolution and color depth.

This size (137 MB) is a problem as many of us have thousands of photos. The fact is that with a file size of 1/10 of what you have, you can do anything that you are ever likely to want to do.

wrote:

Dear Experts,

Recently, I bought a Nikon coolscan 5000, and
did some scanning of some 35mm transparencies and negs.

I scanned at 16 Bit, used Digital ICE, and saved
in TIF format.

Interestingly, the file sizes were 137 megs big!

I thought that this was odd, because the size of the
images themselves were: 3946 x 5959 pixels,
which, if you multiply these, is about 23 megs.

If I scan at 8 bit, it about 1/2 the size.

Why is the TIF file almost 6 times the size of
the image size? What other information
is being stored in TIF?

What are the advantages of TIF format?

Thanks a lot

(Note: I’m really NOT asking how to get smaller file sizes.)

Any professional digital photographer that sends JPG to any sort of Ad Agency or design firm for color correction and then print on Magazine, billboard or litho press jobs, should be shot and hung. We need way more information to edit the photos and manipulate them than to print them with decent results. Look at your histogram in photoshop and see for yourself. It’s called combing and JPG is by far inferior to TIF or raw. The JPG compression strips out pixels… even at 10 setting (max). It destroys valuable information for proper color correcting and must be stopped!!!
JPG should be used only for family portrait studios and amateurs that can’t afford space, but in the pro world, JPG is shunned. Very much disliked and you will lose respect among the adverstising world.
—
Welcome to Papa Joe’

OK I have sent the same print job in both tiff and jpeg formats with no visible differences in reproduction
In most cases the print house asks specifically for a jpg at 300 res in CMYK and to size of print (for CD covers and labels, did one poster, many postcards and business cards this way)

As I have always felt this format unsuitable for preparing printwork, as you do, I always save my jobs in TIFF- flattened not compressed. (I save all my layers in PSD in case of changes)
I also hear that all text type should not be flattened into the work in PS but to use Illy or In Design would be better to keep vectored text. But no, they do not want that!!
are you a printer Joe?
Maybe that is only cheap print jobs? you would consider sub-standard?
I felt that the TIFF was superior and was surprised they did not care to use it
I make sure to encode the icc in my jpg now
and use maximum not jpg high
the file size is not really any smaller than the TIFF
so it does not save any ftp time
most do not want to wait for a CD to arrive by mail with larger editable files as PSD.
I have rarely sent a print job that does not need adjustments to type or color etc.so it really does not save any time for me to change it and re save and re send it

as for the advertising world well most art directors know squat about formats of photos, or how to color-correct them
sad but true
I would be happy if they left the final retouching to those who created the pictures but they seem to prefer to upload the jpegs direct to their laptops and go home and work on them same day. I would not dare give them RAW. Who knows what they would do?

I can recall about 2-4 print jobs in 20 years I have ever been pleased with in terms of good, respectful of the photo art direction and retouching done well, with beautiful printing. In most cases I just sigh and think what a waste of beautiful pictures. And I put my own prints from the shoot that I like in the portfolio.

I find commercial clients care more about how much will this cost (more like how cheap)
and how fast can you shoot and deliver
of course the poor AD and CD’s have to get approval on their work from a business group with zero knowledge of graphic design who always pick the worst images and want a bunch of tacky text and blurbs all over the place, or worse make cutouts of everything you shot and turn it into some tacky collage…….

rant over

I’m a freelance designer that does lots of photo editing for national magazines,
tousist guides, billboards and newsprint.

JPG has been throw in my world for only one obvious reason… Small file size that allows clients and photographers to send files via internet.
it has little value sendind one to press. Today there are DTP presses that have better quality output than printers had in the 80’s , but in the 80’s they used better images. It doesn’t make any sense for quality. We have better printers but we send nasty JPG’s to the press… The only thing JPG does, is make it easy for the client to store and to send quickly… and they can see it on their monitor… they love JPG!
BleH!!!

—
Welcome to Papa Joe’s