2010.01.15 13:40 "Re: [Tiff] eta for bigtiff support?", by Phil Harvey

2010.02.05 16:36 "Re: [Tiff] eta for bigtiff support?", by Edward Lam

Also recall that TIFF has much more heterogeneous nature compared to PSD files. IMHO, just because Adobe went with a different extension for PSD is a weak argument to begin with.



Yes, and around that time I brought the same arguments and reasons to the libTIFF team.

And they rejected the idea of a different extension.

PSD had problems going to a new version because too many third party implementations were not even checking the version number (or many other size fields) when reading the files.


On 2/4/10 9:35 AM, "Phil Harvey" <phil@owl.phy.queensu.ca> wrote:

Regarding the choice of extension for BigTIFF:

For what it's worth, I have just learned the Adobe released new version of their PSD format back in 2005, called "Photoshop Large Document Format". This change was very similar to that of BigTIFF in that a few of the pointers changed from 4 to 8 bytes. They also changed the file header from "8BPS\0\1" to "8BPS\0\2" so the new file format could be identified (this was a version number change according to the specification).

Adobe uses a different extension for these files (PSB instead of PSD).


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------