2007.07.04 20:37 "Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression", by Andy Cave
If you could, that would be interesting. If I have some spare time, I might try a few things/ideas.
----- Original Message -----
Yup, I've actually done quite a bit of testing, and running LZW with predictor tends to compress 16-bit digital camera photographs very little, or even not at all. The problem, of course, is that the low order bits tend to look a lot like noise.
I can post some sample files if you like. On one of my images from my Canon XTi, exported from DNG to uncompressed TIFF (using Lightroom), the uncompressed size is 57.7 MB, but is 68.8 MB with LZW (plus predictor) compression.
Flate tended to generally do worse than LZW, and be a lot slower, in my testing.