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
February 2009

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

2009.02.25 08:01 "OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by <zhangweiwu@realss.com>
2009.02.25 09:45 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Joris Van Damme
2009.02.27 00:56 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by S Carlsen
2009.02.27 01:53 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by <zhangweiwu@realss.com>
2009.02.27 03:07 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Chris Cox
2009.02.27 05:02 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Toby Thain
2009.02.27 16:01 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2009.02.27 16:54 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Toby Thain
2009.02.27 18:30 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by S Carlsen
2009.02.27 19:09 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Toby Thain
2009.02.27 19:15 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2009.02.27 19:55 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by S Carlsen
2009.02.27 17:41 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Edward Lam
2009.02.27 20:25 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Chris Cox
2009.02.25 14:06 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Toby Thain

2009.02.25 09:45 "Re: OT: Text layer possible in tiff format?", by Joris Van Damme

Zhang,


> Recently I had a talk with a photoshop user who showed me how to save an
> image from Photoshop into TIFF format with all layers preserved. I think
> this makes TIFF  a good image exchange format for users of different
> photo manipulation software. If it can support text layers, it would be
> even better, because most of the times people exchange retouched photo
> only need to preserve layers (including text layers) but do not need to
> preserve all masks and paths. Since TIFF is usable for non-professional
> users as well (both Linux and Windows can view and print these files
> without using image manipulation software), it makes it idea for
> exchange not only between people who do image manipulation but also
> people who receive & use the result.
>
> In the past, people who manipulate photos has to ask if the other one
> want layered format (PSD, ideal for professional users but not viewable
> to ordinary users) or ordinary image (JPEG, readable to ordinary users
> but lost layer information for professional users), with TIFF they don't
> have to.

I agree 100%, except that I don't feel it's off-topic.

TIFF is extensible, and hiërarchical. Which means tags can be defined to 
mean LayerIFDs similar to SubIFDs, tags can be defined to specify text 
content of an image IFD, etc. Its philosophy of enabling readers to always 
safely ignore what they don't understand makes for good interchange. It 
means that an image IFD with text content, can include the text with 
position and style and such in a special tag for those that can make sense 
of it, but should also include the pre-rendered text as a plain image in the 
strips or tiles such that software that only understands image still offers 
the same result though with limited functionality (i.e. no search nor 
editing of text). And it means that IFDs that have a LayerIFDs tag, should 
still contain the pre-rendered 'flattened' version, such that software that 
doesn't wish to bother with the concept still shows the image, though with 
limited functionality. Its philosophy includes loss of information that 
software cannot make sense of, and that guarantees consistency of data. It 
means that software that doesn't understand layers and allows editing of the 
flattened base IFD, should not resave the LayerIFDs, and data cannot become 
inconsistent.

TIFF would be ideally suitable for image interchange. It could mean to 
image, what RTF never succeeded in meaning to text. It could be the user's 
guarantee that his image data with all its advanced functionality flows 
freely. However, then there's reality. The vendor of the industry standard 
image editing software, that also owns the TIFF specification, saves any 
advanced data in TIFF in private tags instead of extending the TIFF 
hiërarchy in the intended manner. Obviously, not everybody believes in the 
all-round long-term benefit of unlocking the user's data, ensuring 
interchange and enabling long-term storage.

Best regards,

Joris