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
April 2006

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

2006.04.19 10:45 "TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Rui Castro
2006.04.19 11:40 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 19:26 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Glenn Widener
2006.04.19 21:03 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 21:22 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.04.19 21:38 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 21:52 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.04.19 22:47 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 23:05 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.04.19 23:27 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 23:34 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Graeme Gill
2006.04.19 23:41 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Graeme Gill
2006.05.01 01:34 "JBIG2 patent situation", by Glenn Widener
2006.05.01 16:07 "Re: JBIG2 patent situation", by Dwight Kelly
2006.04.20 07:30 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Brad Hards
2006.04.19 11:49 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Rocky Pulley
2006.04.19 12:40 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Gerben Vos
2006.04.20 20:27 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by <melser.anton@gmail.com>

2006.04.19 21:38 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol

At 05:22 PM 4/19/2006, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > MUCH smaller file sizes courtesy of JBIG2! And the 
> > possibility of JPEG2000 for color images. PLUS, the ability 
> > to do "image segmentation"
>
> JBIG2 and JPEG2000 use patented algorithms so they are not as useful 
> as they should be.

Patents, provided they are covered by "reasonable licensing" 
aren't considered a limiting factor in ISO standards.  So that's a non-issue.


> TIFF can easily be extended to support these compression schemes.

It could - but that would just make TIFF "worse" for 
archiving - not better...


> > Don't get me wrong - TIFF serves a variety of purposes, but 
> > long time archival storage is NOT one of them.
>
> TIFF bits are no more susceptible to 'rot' than PDF bits.  They are 
> still just on or off like any other form of bit.

"bit rot" is NOT the issue for long term storage (at least 
on the file format side of the fence)....it is about the "ability to 
preserve information its presentation".   Because TIFF (as we know it 
today) has been "hacked up" by many people for many (incompatible) 
purposes - not just with new and undocumented tags BUT also with 
variant implementations of existing tags (eg. OJPEG), it doesn't pass 
the test for reliability.  Neither does "standard" PDF - which is why 
a SUBSET of the standard, now called PDF/A (or ISO 19005-1) exists - 
to remove any potential problems and "lock down" areas of ambiguitity.

Doing the same for TIFF would be a worthwhile goal...and one 
that would be necessary for TIFF to achieve a level of respect in the 
archival community.

Of course, there are still the issues of archiving metadata 
& marginalia - that TIFF doesn't do so well/at all.


> I think that the usefulness of TIFF or PDF depends on what you need 
> to accomplish.

I agree, 100%!


Leonard

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol                            <mailto:leonardr@pdfsages.com>
Chief Technical Officer                      <http://www.pdfsages.com>
PDF Sages, Inc.                              215-938-7080 (voice)
                                              215-938-0880 (fax)