Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- From: "cypherswipe" <cypherswipe@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Dec 2005 16:01:46 -0800
>>You're comparing apples to oranges. JPEG is not a file format, it is a
codestream format. One popular file format for JPEG is JFIF
I know that, it's just a question of semantics. I know that what
everyone knows as a "JPEG" image is actually a JFIF. I should have made
a point of being more accurate in my wording.
I'm comparing an image saved as a standard (JFIF) JPEG, and the exact
same image saved as a TIFF using JPEG compression. At the same visual
quality level, the TIFF is still HUGE compared to the JPEG/JFIF. The
TIFF is anywhere from 3 to 5 times as large as the JPEG/JFIF. So the
question remains, is there ever any reason to use JPEG compression in a
TIFF file? A JFIF/JPEG gets much better filesize for the same visual
quality, and a TIFF compressed with LZW, ZIP, or packbits is only
slightly larger than one that's JPEG compressed, but doesn't throw away
any image data.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- From: Thomas Richter
- Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- From: Pete Fraser
- Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- References:
- JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- From: cypherswipe
- Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- From: Thomas Richter
- JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about mmap wrt compressed files
- Next by Date: Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- Previous by thread: Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- Next by thread: Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|