🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: bit.listserv.imagelib
Article #158

Re: tiff parsing problem

#158
From: Peter Nelson
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 00:00
59 lines
2872 bytes
I am still working on the TIFF problem, and thank those who have
contributed suggestions and comments (as contradictory as they may be).
For now I want to follow up on something David Adams wrote:

<snip>

> This leads me on to a query regarding LZW.
>
> Is this a useful file format ?
> the amount of compression is little ca10%
> There isnt a great deal of saving cost wise.
> (we save 5,000 uncompressed tiff files a year, using lzw we would
> save $30 on CD costs, whoppee)
>
> Is it going to prove a problem in the distant
> future as far as readablity goes ? 50+ years from now.
>
> We are sticking to raw tiff format.

LZW works a lot better for me.  I am not getting 10% file compression with
LZW, as you are. It's between 87-93%! (I.e., I have an uncompressed TIFF
of 824 KB; with LZW it is 101KB.  Another uncompresed file is 888 KB,
while with LZW it is only 63 KB.)  LZW would seem to me to be a
significant space-saver, regardless of plummeting storage costs.  How can
we be so far off in our compression savings?

.....................................................................
Peter Nelson                                    pnelson@mtholyoke.edu
Five College Archives Digital Access Project
c/o Mount Holyoke College Archives       http://clio.fivecolleges.edu
South Hadley, MA 01075                                 (413) 538-3020

Internet is a good way to get on the Net. - Bob Dole
......................................................................


On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, David Adams wrote:

> This leads me on to a query regarding LZW.
>
> Is this a useful file format ?
> the amount of compression is little ca10%
> There isnt a great deal of saving cost wise.
> (we save 5,000 uncompressed tiff files a year, using lzw we would
> save $30 on CD costs, whoppee)
>
> Is it going to prove a problem in the distant
> future as far as readablity goes ? 50+ years from now.
>
> We are sticking to raw tiff format.
>
>
>
>
> David Adams
> Copying Services - Team Leader
> Visit "Timeframes" at http://timeframes.natlib.govt.nz/
> "New Zealand's leading source of heritage images"
>
Technical Details
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.96.981009172220.14989C-100000@axis.mtholyoke.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <199810082026.NAA22412@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fede4,99437f8bf1d2830
X-Google-Attributes: gidfede4,public
From: Peter Nelson <pnelson@MTHOLYOKE.EDU>
Subject: Re: tiff parsing problem
Date: 1998/10/09
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.96.981009172220.14989C-100000@axis.mtholyoke.edu>
X-Deja-AN: 399611227
Sender: IMAGELIB <IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU                              *
References: <199810082026.NAA22412@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>
Comments: cc: maps-l@mhc.mtholyoke.edu
X-Authentication-Warning: axis.mtholyoke.edu: pnelson owned process doing -bs
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.imagelib