AWARE [SYSTEMS] Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer
AWare Systems, Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer, Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
June 2011

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2011.06.05 12:38 "Questions on TIFF LZW compression", by Thomas Richter
2011.06.05 12:47 "Questions on TIFF LZW compression", by Thomas Richter
2011.06.06 16:17 "Re: Questions on TIFF LZW compression", by Olivier Paquet
2011.06.06 16:55 "Re: Questions on TIFF LZW compression", by Bob Friesenhahn
2011.06.07 16:45 "Re: Questions on TIFF LZW compression", by Thomas Richter
2011.06.07 17:06 "Re: Questions on TIFF LZW compression", by Bob Friesenhahn

2011.06.07 16:45 "Re: Questions on TIFF LZW compression", by Thomas Richter

On 06.06.2011 18:55, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

Thanks for your insight, Bob.

> While I am not an expert at TIFF compression issues, I suspect that you
> are correct that the predictor has little value (and may cause harm) at
> depths other than 8 (and perhaps 16) bits since the compressor works on
> an octet stream.

Question rather is, does it predict octects, or pixel values modulo 2^N?
I'm not so much concerned about the compression performance - as you 
say, there are clearly better codecs available - but rather about 
correctness. I really wonder how specs as sketchy as the TIFF specs got 
accepted.

> The value of the predictor depends on the nature of the
> image. When Adobe produced a preliminary application note about
> Photoshop CS2's added support for 16 and 24 bit floats, they also
> defined new types of predictors which work better for that sort of data.

I understand. Is there a newer spec than rev.6 available? I don't see 
much of this in the specs I have.

> TIFF is not PNG. PNG has a huge number of filter mechanisms, but TIFF is
> more of a "working format" so it focuses less on achieving the absolute
> smallest file size. The ability of TIFF to directly store 10 bit data is
> already an accomplishment compared with other formats which would be
> forced to promote to 16-bit and then use compression to make the result
> smaller.

Sure, that's all understood. As said, I don't really care about 
compression, but I'm trying to understand the specs.

Greetings,
	Thomas