2007.07.01 03:01 "[Tiff] Big TIFF Sample Files", by
- 2007.07.03 10:44 "Re: [Tiff] Big TIFF Sample Files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.03 12:26 "[Tiff] Big TIFF Compression", by Andy Cave
-
2007.07.03 12:39 "[Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.07.03 13:02 "[Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Andy Cave
- 2007.07.03 13:46 "[Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.07.03 13:55 "Re: [Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2007.07.03 14:34 "[Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Kemp Watson
- 2007.07.03 15:25 "RE: [Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Ed Grissom
- 2007.07.03 15:27 "RE: [Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Ed Grissom
-
2007.07.03 13:02 "[Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Andy Cave
- 2007.07.03 16:06 "Re: [Tiff] Big TIFF Compression", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2007.07.03 19:28 "Re: [Tiff] Big TIFF Compression", by Chris Cox
-
2007.07.03 12:39 "[Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Joris Van Damme
2007.07.03 15:27 "RE: [Tiff] Re: Big TIFF Compression", by Ed Grissom
Sorry about that previous incomplete message.
Andy Cave wrote:
> It sounds like people currently don't write 1m x 1m pixels
Well, yes, we do. We write stuff that is even smaller than that. For
aerial photography, you can get into the centimeter range if you fly low
enough.
What we do now is limit the file size to under 2Gig (for compatibility),
and produce hundreds or thousands of files. State and local
governments, especially Department's of Transportations like to have the entire count or even the entire state photographed every few years. This is an enormous tracking problem, and if the files could be larger, there would be fewer of them, reducing the tracking problem.
--
ed grissom
ed.grissom@intergraph.com