| AWARE [SYSTEMS] | Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer | |||||||
![]() |
TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive | |||||||
LibTiff Mailing List
TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive Contact
The TIFF Mailing List Homepage |
Thread2007.07.04 17:26 "Re: 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy CavePS With LZW, have you tried with prediction enabled? That should improve the compression ratio on 16 bit ints. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Cave" <andy.cave@hamillroad.com> To: <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; "Stephen Carlsen" <sc42business@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression > Hi Stephen, > > Are you saying that LZW or Flate do not get 2:1? Have you tried either of > these? What ratios do you get? > > Do you have some example files for testing with? > > I think if you can compress and write to disk faster than you can write, > compression is always worth it. Sure storage space is getting larger and > faster, but then CPUs are getting more and more cores, which can nicely do > compression in parallel. > > Andy. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Carlsen" <sc42business@mac.com> > To: <tiff@lists.maptools.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:13 PM > Subject: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression > > >> It seems to me that none of the lossless compression schemes commonly >> used in TIFF are very effective at compressing 16 bit or 32 bit data. >> And, with technologies such as Camera Raw gaining in popularity rapidly, >> there's a lot more 16 bit data out there. >> >> If we can come up with a simple approach that gives us on the order of >> 2:1 compression of 16 bit photographs, is this useful, or are storage >> space and bandwidth now so inexpensive that we don't care any more? >> _______________________________________________ >> Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org >> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff >> http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/ > |
|||||||