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
October 2000

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

2000.10.05 00:20 "Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Tim Bell
2000.10.05 03:39 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Niles Ritter
2000.10.05 19:43 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Rex Jolliff
2000.10.06 02:20 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Tom Lane
2000.10.06 04:44 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Raj Kumar S
2000.10.06 09:36 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Joris Van Damme
2000.10.06 13:50 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Frank Warmerdam
2000.10.06 13:31 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 14:21 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Martin Bailey
2000.10.06 14:44 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 15:04 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Martin Bailey
2000.10.06 15:07 "PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Leonard Rosenthol
2000.10.06 16:13 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 16:32 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Leonard Rosenthol
2000.10.06 16:35 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 20:10 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Bo Yang
2000.10.06 20:41 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 21:35 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Alex Cherepanov
2000.10.08 00:24 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Leonard Rosenthol
2000.10.06 21:02 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Larry Jones
2000.10.06 17:56 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Joris Van Damme
2000.10.06 10:36 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Martin Bailey
2000.10.07 06:03 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Joris Van Damme

2000.10.06 17:56 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Joris Van Damme

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Joris,
> 
> I am not sure who would be up to publishing a whole TIFF V7.0 specification,
> but I think a first step would be to write up some proposed ammendments for
> work that has been done - essentially more tech notes.  Two items that come
> to mind for me are the addition of SAMPLEFORMAT_COMPLEXINT/COMPLEXIEEEFP,
> and the deflate (aka zip) compression scheme.

Yeap; that and most of the other stuff mentioned already by others. I'ld
be especially interested in deflate compression, and a way to get a
'toc' quickly and early.

> What all sorts of things do people want to put in a V7.0 spec?  Assuming we
> were trying to do something minimal what really needs to be done?  Do you
> bring this up mainly in the hopes of settling the "OJPEG" issue once and for
> all?

Well, settling the OJPEG issue 'once and for all' would be one of the
very nice consequences. Though I agree with mister Lane that is de facto
already settled because reading any vendor's interpretation of the OJPEG
is not feasable.

> If we really want to extend TIFF significantly we should really try to bring a
> few of the major software vendors onside (folks who sell imaging libraries like
> ImageGear) and major software vendors like ... Microsoft, Corel, etc.

Well, I am but a humble shrimp. I do not work in the printing bussiness,
hell, I don't even have any knowledge on half of the TIFF tags. I'm
simply trying to put together a more or less complete group of codecs
that could be usefull for those of us who try to keep life simple, and
as such I use public libraries like LibTiff.

Nevertheless, I must say this talk about 'major software vendors' does
not fill me with great expectations. Didn't we start of by saying the
major software vendor Adobe is neglecting this format? When is the last
time you tried to read any of the more exotic tiffs in microsoft, adobe
or corel software? Now even I am able to read the vast majority of the
'exotic' tiffs with the aid of LibTiff while those 'major software
vendors' often aren't. So, as far as this humble shrimp is concerned,
the LibTiff community has far more credibility than those 'major
software venders'.

> Finally, I don't think we need to worry about TIFF being replaced by anything
> else too quickly.  It is a stable and popular format.  But even if it did
> fade in importance, is that the end of the world if some new format is able
> to what needs to be done?

As someone else already pointed out, much of the value of the TIFF
format is a consequence of the existence of LibTiff. This seems to be a
rather general phenomenon in computer science today. For example, JPEG
would probably not have a tenth of the importance it has today without
mister Lane. The existence of a complete public library is almost more
important than the existence of a good spec, in that regard. Most of us
can interface with the format relatively painlessly. Those of us who
want more control can use the library as a spec. In fact, the 'major
software vendors' who write their own stuff miss out on more files than
we do.

So, the existence of LibTiff is why I'ld like to see the TIFF format
kept alive.

Was it you that responded in another mail on the tile issue, Frank?
Anyway, my remark on that was not meant specifically on tiles (I am not
native english, and I have to put in a lot of work to try to be
comprehensible). Rather, I meant the number of substantially different
storage 'modes', tiled being just an example of one of them. Tiled or
stripped, downsampled or not, planar or continues, variable number of
alpha channels,.... My interface to LibTiff needed 16 (16!!!) different
retrieval strategies.



Best regards,


Joris