-
2004.04.15 01:57 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.04.15 02:17 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Lynn Quam
- 2004.04.15 04:41 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.15 06:05 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.15 13:33 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.04.15 02:17 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Lynn Quam
- 2004.04.15 12:23 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Dan Smith
-
2004.04.20 08:29 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.20 14:20 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.20 20:44 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.21 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.04.21 17:54 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 07:38 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.04.22 18:21 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.22 18:34 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Thomas J. Kacvinsky
-
2004.04.22 20:45 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Andrey Kiselev
-
2004.04.22 21:06 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 21:35 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 21:49 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.04.22 21:59 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.22 22:23 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.04.22 22:31 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 22:34 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.22 23:03 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.23 12:45 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by John Aldridge
-
2004.04.23 13:12 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.04.26 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.23 13:16 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Phillip Crews
- 2004.04.23 20:28 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Andrey Kiselev
-
2004.04.23 13:12 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 22:34 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.23 15:54 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Leonard Rosenthol
-
2004.04.22 21:59 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 21:49 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.04.22 21:35 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 21:06 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 18:21 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 07:38 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.04.21 17:54 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.21 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.23 20:37 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.04.26 12:05 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by John Aldridge
- Such tricky descisions should be left to the higher level, not the lower, as at least on that level there *may* be more information available, and at least that way it's the library user's responsability to select. (Remember the library user (code) selects tiles or strips. So why shouldn't he be the one to select 32 or 64bit flavor?)
That's quite an illuminating example. There are still lots of applications which don't support tiled Tiff, with the result that it's not useful as a general purpose image interchange format.
If data written in 64-bit mode is not compatible with 32-bit code in so far as that is possible, then it won't be widely supported in the forseeable future. That doesn't make it useless: within a single organisation it'd be perfectly possible to use such a format for image storage; but don't expect to be able to distribute such an image outside that controlled environment.
I expect > that after such > experience most programmers will select 64 bit, or there must be a hard > requirement > for 32 bit only.
In time, like couple of years or so, that is bound to happen either way (if ever we stop rambling and do some actual work, that is). It is not a bad thing.
I don't believe it, unfortunately.
John