[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)

["Johnny Johnson" <jjohnso4@attbi.com>]

At 01:20 PM 6/9/02 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote:

>Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist
>and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF
>files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress
>TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG
>compression  at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of
>the file they are getting.

Hi Laurie,

Is it not lzw compression instead of lwz?  In any case, does the amount of
reduction in the file size using lzw compression vary considerably with the
content?  The reason I ask is that I just compared a scanned photograph of
3591 X 5472 pixel size saved in several formats.  The results were:

TIFF                            36,498 kb
TIFF with lwz compression       36, 523 kb
JPG @ Photoshop level 12        17,633 kb

Your comment that lzw compressed TIFF files are as small as JPGs made me
wonder if you are working with graphic files and if they offer better
compression than photos.

Later,
Johnny


__________________________
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA
mailto:jjohnso4@attbi.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body