- 2007.07.03 19:04 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension?", by Stephen Carlsen
-
2007.07.03 19:09 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension?", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2007.07.04 15:58 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension?", by Phil Harvey
- 2007.07.04 11:37 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension?", by Phil Harvey
-
2007.07.04 17:13 "[Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Stephen Carlsen
-
2007.07.04 17:24 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.04 17:26 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.04 17:49 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Stephen Carlsen
- 2007.07.04 18:00 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.07.04 20:37 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.05 10:56 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2007.07.05 12:03 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.05 17:58 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Stephen Carlsen
- 2007.07.04 18:02 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.07.05 18:30 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.07.06 01:46 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Chris Cox
-
2007.07.04 17:49 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Stephen Carlsen
-
2007.07.04 17:26 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy Cave
- 2007.07.04 17:28 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Michael Wolf
- 2007.07.04 17:36 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andrew Brooks
-
2007.07.04 17:24 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.04 15:58 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension?", by Phil Harvey
- 2007.07.03 19:17 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension?", by Andy Cave
- 2007.07.04 11:53 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension?", by Phil Harvey
-
2007.07.04 20:52 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.04 21:04 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Toby Thain
-
2007.07.05 05:07 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 08:09 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.05 13:40 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 21:00 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Chris Cox
- 2007.07.05 21:19 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 22:13 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2007.08.06 22:48 "RE: [Tiff] Transparency ... associated or unassociated alpha is morecompatible?", by Chris Cox
- 2007.08.06 22:32 "RE: [Tiff] Transparency ... associated or unassociated alpha is morecompatible?", by Chris Cox
-
2007.08.06 22:48 "RE: [Tiff] Transparency ... associated or unassociated alpha is morecompatible?", by Chris Cox
- 2007.07.06 12:36 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Gary McGath
-
2007.07.05 21:00 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Chris Cox
-
2007.07.05 13:40 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 08:09 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.05 16:26 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 04:19 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Kemp Watson
-
2007.07.04 16:56 "[Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Kemp Watson
-
2007.07.04 17:35 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Andrew Brooks
- 2007.07.04 18:13 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by John Aldridge
-
2007.07.04 18:25 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Phil Harvey
- 2007.07.04 18:52 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Toby Thain
- 2007.07.04 19:17 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2007.07.05 20:31 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Chris Cox
- 2007.07.05 15:14 "[Tiff] BigTIFF - Aware Aperio version diff", by Kemp Watson
-
2007.07.04 17:35 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Andrew Brooks
- 2007.07.05 04:54 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Stephen Carlsen
- 2007.07.05 16:32 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Kemp Watson
-
2007.07.04 16:56 "[Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Kemp Watson
- 2007.07.05 18:56 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Toby Thain
-
2007.07.05 04:19 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Kemp Watson
-
2007.07.05 05:07 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 10:06 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by John Aldridge
-
2007.07.05 13:23 "[Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Gary McGath
-
2007.07.05 13:56 "Re: [Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 14:14 "Re: [Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Gary McGath
- 2007.07.05 14:39 "Re: [Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.07.05 15:26 "Re: [Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Andrey Kiselev
-
2007.07.05 14:14 "Re: [Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Gary McGath
-
2007.07.05 13:56 "Re: [Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.05 13:23 "[Tiff] Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 38, Issue 12", by Gary McGath
- 2007.07.05 16:51 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Andrew Brooks
- 2007.07.09 16:11 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Stephen Carlsen
-
2007.07.04 21:04 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Toby Thain
2007.07.05 04:19 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF extension", by Kemp Watson
I fully agree with Joris. Fact is, TIFF readers rarely support all of TIFF possibilities - it's already a complex format, and this is simply yet another extension. The version number is a convenience, and compared with the vast array of sporadically supported features in v.42, it has next to no meaning. Not saying I agree with that, but it's the way it is - _any_ TIFF reader has to iterate over quite a number of tags to determine whether it's capable of handling a particular file - I fail to see how this is in _any_ way different.
In short, choosing ".tif" in a dialog says absolutely nothing about the readability of a TIFF file.
Kemp Watson
-----Original Message-----
From: Joris [mailto:joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be]
Sent: July 4, 2007 10:42 PM
To: kemp@extelligence.net; Stephen Carlsen
Stephen,
Stephen Carlsen wrote:
> "Because, for the first time in the 21 year history of TIFF, the
> structure itself has changed, and, accordingly, the 'version number'
> has changed from 42 to 43. (The 'version number' has, of course, been
> 42 since the very beginning of TIFF.) This breaks all existing TIFF
> readers."
The exact same thing applies to the coming of tiles in TIFF. It wasn't the structure itself that had changed at that time, but it was some of the extremely vital tags, which resulted in the same. It broke all existing TIFF readers. Your reasoning would have applied back then, too, and we'd be
forced to use 'tf3' as an extension right now because 'tf2' would have been taken for tiled TIFF. No, actually, we would be forced to use 'tf3' for striped BigTIFF and 'tf4' for tiled BigTIFF, probably.
Put things to this extreme, and you can end up encoding all information in the extension. That's not a good thing to do. Put the exact information
where it belongs, not more and not less, and don't code anything twice. The extension is for marking the file format, and that's TIFF in both
ClassicTIFF and BigTIFF version. The version number, in turn, marks the version. That's just good, and truthfull information encoding management.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release Date: 04-Jul-2007 1:40 PM