- 2004.05.27 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 09:25 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.05.27 10:43 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 12:49 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 13:05 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.05.27 18:31 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Chris Cox
- 2004.06.01 11:50 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 16:37 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.06.04 13:31 "RE: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Ed Grissom
- 2004.06.09 20:33 "[Tiff] Re: large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
2004.06.01 11:50 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
This is a serious question, and not intended as a flame: if I need to support a new file format to get >2/4GB support, why wouldn't I just use PNG?
...and got several informative answers which basically fall in to two camps:
(a) So PNG can handle images > 4GB. That's precious little use without the ability to do random access to parts of the image.
Having thought about it a bit, I agree entirely.
(b) Tiff can handle <data-format-of-choice-for-my-application>.
This is both a strength /and/ a weakness. The fact that Tiff has so many different ways of storing data is handy for the writer, but a real pain for the reader. Maybe PNG isn't flexible enough, but Tiff is so flexible that supporting the full spec is a lot of work.
Thanks,
John