Re: JPEG compression in a TIFF file, pointless?


"Thomas Richter" <thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:dogv1l$4b2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi,
>
>> 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.
>
> In that case, your TIFF creation program does something strange.
> A JPEG in a TIFF container should be approximately the same size
> as a JPEG in a JFIF container. Probably it stores an uncompressed/
> raw version of the image along with the JPEG compressed version in the
> same container.
>
> So long,
> Thomas

It's logical that TIFF will store some other info into it's container.
(I'tought I'd heared once that it stores color correlograms in its file???
(not sure)). once had a tiff of about 120meg (non JPEG) and the same image
in BMP was about 31 meg.

Greets
Arne


.

Relevant Pages