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
July 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

2011.07.27 16:39 "Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Terry L Sprout
2011.07.27 22:37 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Bob Friesenhahn
2011.07.27 22:51 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Terry L Sprout
2011.07.27 23:57 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Chris Cox
2011.07.28 00:34 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Chris Cox
2011.07.28 11:48 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Leonard Rosenthol
2011.07.28 18:04 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Andreas Kleinert
2011.07.29 01:01 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Toby Thain
2011.07.28 17:30 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by <rwong_002@hotmail.com>
2011.07.29 18:53 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Chris Cox
2011.07.28 00:31 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Terry L Sprout
2011.07.28 00:56 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Terry L Sprout
2011.07.28 18:19 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Thomas Richter
2011.07.28 18:30 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Terry L Sprout
2011.07.29 00:49 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Ryan Wong
2011.07.28 00:45 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Daniel Mccoy
2011.07.28 18:12 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Andreas Kleinert

2011.07.28 00:56 "Re: Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Terry L Sprout

I appreciate your comments. After more thought, I think I will take your
suggestion and at least convert the image to a 1-bit/sample image (I
will have to experiment on the time it takes to compress further).
Another scheme we will use to save disk space is to integrate multiple
images into a single image. This will create a longer exposure (seconds
or minutes per image) and the bandwidth will be decreased significantly.
Then I can include the integrated image along with a list of all the
photons used to create the image. Scientists can still take the photon
lists and create more images at different exposure times as they wish.
This scheme will allow any TIFF reader to display the image and it
allows others that understand the photon lists to do more as desired.

 

 

Terry L. Sprout

(510) 324-5501

w7-32

 

From: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
[mailto:tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cox
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:45 PM
To: TIFF
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Using photon lists rather than rasters

 

It's still not an image.

You really should use another format more appropriate to your data.

Chris



On 7/27/11 5:31 PM, "Terry L. Sprout"
<Terry.Sprout@Agile-Automation.com> wrote:

The 1 bit/sample idea would work if the coordinates were not sub-pixel
resolution and if there was only one time-point of photons in the list.
Another issue I have is the time it will take to perform the
compression. Some cameras I deal with today acquire 1000 ips and we are
moving into > 20,000 ips. It's difficult enough writing the original
image; compression will be worse.
 
I understand your concerns regarding undocumented custom compression
types. After all, what is the point of using a standard file format if
most readers cannot display the image.
 
What if I publish the compression scheme?
 


Terry L. Sprout
(510) 324-5501
w7-32
 

From: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
[mailto:tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cox
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:01 PM
To: TIFF
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Using photon lists rather than rasters


Tagged Image File Format.

I would rather not see a TIFF "image" that is not an image and is not
readable by other software.
TIFF already gets too much abuse with undocumented custom compression
types that render the files useless.

In this case you are creating a vector display list, for which there are
more appropriate types.

Personally, I'd just apply a better predictor to improve compression and
keep the image data.  If all you need are locations/centroids of photon
hits - you could easily convert the image to a 1 bit/sample
representation and compress that.


Chris
 


On 7/27/11 3:51 PM, "Terry L. Sprout"
<Terry.Sprout@Agile-Automation.com> wrote:
Ryan Wong wrote the following message and accidently sent it directly to
my email:
 
***************************
Hello Terry, 

TIFF is a raster image format, not a vector image format. Inside a TIFF
file, each page must contain exactly one raster image. It can contain
vector annotations in metadata, but viewers are not required to render
it. It will most likely be ignored by most TIFF viewers that do not
understand it. A TIFF page can contain thumbnail images, which, like any
other metadata, can be ignored by viewers that do not support it.

No matter how hard you try, no current software would be able to decode
from your photons list. Even far into the future, mainstream software do
not have a need to support "photon lists", but they will happily render
the raster image part of a processed TIFF file.

My suggestion is to store the coordinates as a metadata tag, which
accompanies with the original (unprocessed) image file. TIFF metadata
tags can store arbitrary byte data and do not have size limits (unless
going into the gigabytes range). This is the recommended way of storing
your coordinates data. And yes, floating point (32-bit, 64-bit and all
IEEE-approved ones) are supported in metadata.

Viewers that do not understand your photons list will simply ignore it,
and will still display the unprocessed image. Similar to the way EXIF
can be added as an optional part of any TIFF file.

If you do not take this approach, I don't think your proposal will be
accepted by the larger TIFF community at all. In particular,
modifications to NewSubFileType, proposals to support a StripByteCount
of zero, will be shot down immediately.

Thanks,
rwong_002@hotmail.com <mailto:rwong_002@hotmail.com> 
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the writers'
employer(s). Neither the writer(s), nor the writers' employers, make any
claim as to the accuracy of the opinions expressed here.
***************************



Hello Ryan,
 
Thank you for your comments.
 
Including the original image doesn't help since one purpose is to create
smaller files so the drive doesn't fill up so fast. My software can
currently fill up a hard drive at 240 MB/s. Some people are using a
camera that outputs very sparse photons (maybe 100 photons from a 300 KB
image 120 times per second) and they only want to know where the photons
are located. They can then playback the photon list and create images
with different exposures. The original image will consume over 600 KB
per image (they're 2 bytes per pixel) or 73 MB/s; or 4.8 GB/m; or 262
GB/h. In contrast, the photon list will only consume about 400 bytes per
image; or 48 KB/s; or 2.9 MB/m; or 173 MB/h. That's a very good
compression ratio.
 
I've decided to treat the coordinate list as a new compression type,
since that's basically what it is. When my new compression type is used
(34927), my new coordinate list tag (51098) must be used as well. The
coordinate list tag is a pointer to a linked list of IFDs that will
contain a list of pixel coordinates along with a list of intensity
values (and a timestamp). TIFF readers that don't understand the
compression type should ignore the image. I don't really expect most
people that provide TIFF readers to add this capability, but they can if
they want to view the images. The scientists that use this data will add
this capability because it helps them in their analysis.
 


Terry L. Sprout
(510) 324-5501
w7-32