Re: TIF or JPEG?
- From: "CSM1" <nomoremail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:38:57 GMT
"Scoop" <humewfdo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122376744.856991.78920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Should I be saving scans as TIF or JPEG?
>
> Apparently TIF are better quality and do not lose quality each time
> they are saved but are much larger. I am scanning 35mm film to CD
> (designated film scanner) with a view to looking at the images on my
> computer or TV via DVD. Also any suggestions on suitable resolution for
> this?
>
If you are scanning the film for preservation, you should maybe scan at the
maximum optical resolution of your scanner. Film Scanners do a better job
with 35 mm film.
If you have the storage space for all of the TIFFs then that is the best
format to save your files. No lost or any kind.
However, High quality Jpegs are fine if you do not edit and resave them many
times.
Jpegs take around 1/10 the space as a uncompressed TIFF.
Jpegs only deteriorate from the original quality they were saved at if you
edit and then recompress them several times. Just copying the file does not
cause any more deterioration.
The amount of deterioration for the first compression is not usually visible
to the human eye if the compression is not too much. A jpeg quality of 90 on
a scale of 0-100 is usually not visible to the human eye.
--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
.
- References:
- TIF or JPEG?
- From: Scoop
- TIF or JPEG?
- Prev by Date: Re: TIF or JPEG?
- Next by Date: Re: Vuescan 8.2.24, what's new: "Significantly improved infrared cleaning "?
- Previous by thread: Re: TIF or JPEG?
- Next by thread: Re: TIF or JPEG?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|