Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?



Lynn Allen penned:
> Although I haven't used it (some members have/do), PNG probably offers the 
> best compression in a "lossless" format--according to the chart that Bert 
> posted. Photoshop *does* offer that. Whether the format will be around in 20 
> years is another matter. :-) 

The classic question - will it be around. PNG is an open standard
and offers a significant improvement for lossless compression
over LZW with TIF files. Ive posted this example below, the
reason is simple - the mathematics is more recent, so the compressor
does better - every time. 

Will Photoshop be around? Or CD drives, or TIF? In my cupboard
I have some 8 inch floppy disks ... but I moved stuff off of these
when I saw that their end was nigh - TIF will go this way - as will
PNG as will all :)

As for support - it wont go away due to its growing use over GIF
for non photographic images for web work (better features/ compression
than GIF, and no software patent). Most web users dont even notice
that an image is PNG - just a bit faster ...

RAW TIF: 24532 Kb = 2500x3300@24bit 
LZW TIF: 20336 Kb = 17% smaller 
    PNG: 16348 Kb = 33% smaller 

For a folder full of TIF scanned images (LZW) = 469 Megs.
The same folder full compressed as PNG = 320 Megs.

Two folders of images per CD ...

Im no evangelist - just a conservationist :)

bert




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.