Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Lossless vs. lossy

Reply
Thread Tools

Lossless vs. lossy

 
 
Robert Peirce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
to TIFF, but these files are huge! What file types can provide lossless
compression, AND are something that a Windows user could open.

BTW, when I sent a JPG file to a Windows user it showed up on his
machine as a MIM, whatever that is. I sent the same files to my office
computer and tghey came through as JPG. I don't know why.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) [Mac]
(E-Mail Removed) [Office]

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:29:20 GMT, Robert Peirce
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
>to TIFF, but these files are huge! What file types can provide lossless
>compression, AND are something that a Windows user could open.
>
>BTW, when I sent a JPG file to a Windows user it showed up on his
>machine as a MIM, whatever that is. I sent the same files to my office
>computer and tghey came through as JPG. I don't know why.



PNG is losselss, and you can have (lossless) compression
with TIFF files also.

But lossless compression in image files isn't too dramatic
unless your images are out of focus and have lots of blue
sky or featureless areas in them. Lots of sharpness &
detail means poor compression. No way around it.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gav
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
MIM is extention for MIME (Multi-Purpose Internet Mail Extensions). If he
wants to open them tell him to use Winzip.

Gav

"Robert Peirce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
> to TIFF, but these files are huge! What file types can provide lossless
> compression, AND are something that a Windows user could open.
>
> BTW, when I sent a JPG file to a Windows user it showed up on his
> machine as a MIM, whatever that is. I sent the same files to my office
> computer and tghey came through as JPG. I don't know why.
>
> --
> Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
> (E-Mail Removed) [Mac]
> (E-Mail Removed) [Office]
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Trev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003

"Robert Peirce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert

everythihng
> to TIFF, but these files are huge! What file types can provide

lossless
> compression, AND are something that a Windows user could open.
>

Lossless JPEG even, but if its lossless its not going to be as small
because nothing has been thrown away as in a compressed jpeg. In witch
you can decide how much is discarded/compressed


 
Reply With Quote
 
jriegle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
I'm a Windows user and I use TIFF for saving work I don't want to loose any
quality from. Yes they are very large. Photographic images will not compress
very much in the non loss schemes because of the constant variation from
pixel to pixel thanks to subject matter or noise. There is no/little
patterns to use to compress on, so the TIFF files remain large.

You can set the JPEG compression lower to minimize the loss, but still keep
the file size reasonable.

The user getting the MIME file has nothing to do with Windows. More likely
it is his company's mail server or ISP can't properly read your MIME
encoding. Encoding is used because email protocols were not designed to
handle binary data. Someone got the idea to create a program to convert a
binary file to all ASCII characters so it could be sent through the
electronic mail system. The user on the other end had to decode it with a
decoding program to turn it back into a binary file. Now days all of this
goes on "behind the scenes" so to speak. Many moons ago we had a Lotus Notes
server for electronic messaging. We would get unconverted files every now
and then.

There are many free programs to convert these files back to binary. As
someone else said Winzip will work.
John

"Robert Peirce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
> to TIFF, but these files are huge! What file types can provide lossless
> compression, AND are something that a Windows user could open.
>
> BTW, when I sent a JPG file to a Windows user it showed up on his
> machine as a MIM, whatever that is. I sent the same files to my office
> computer and tghey came through as JPG. I don't know why.
>
> --
> Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
> (E-Mail Removed) [Mac]
> (E-Mail Removed) [Office]
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Boris Harss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
Hi, Robert!

> I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
> to TIFF, but these files are huge!


Hmmm, maybe, this is a process issue. Once the file is a JPEG, you do
not improve the quality by saving it as a TIFF (or anything else), the
data is already lost. The process camera/computer/file-for-use should be:

* Use RAW or a loss-less format on your memory cards
* Use a loss-less format for your pics on the PC until you are done
working on them (adjusting them with Photoshop, ...)
* Store/archieve them this way, if you can afford to do so,
otherwise
* store/archieve them using moderate compression JPEG
* If you want to use them on the net (e-mail/www),
- reduce their resolution according to the need
- re-sharpen them moderately
- save them with compression as needed
(less is more, but quite some is ok ) )

AVOID doing this: Save a pic as JPEG, open it later and work on the
file, save it again as a JPEG, .... : Every time you save, you loose
quality.

Greetings,
B.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Terry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
Why save them as TIF unless you are going to manipulate them later? Do you
plan to crop, correct color, or alter them some other way? If not your
jpegs are fine. Saving to TIF will just prevent further deterioration if
you do modify the files with a photoeditor like Photoshop.
I save photos I may work on later as TIFs and just burn them to a CD saving
space on my hard drive. Boris is right. If you plan to work on the photo
later shoot it originally as RAW, but you better have a lot of memory cards
if you do.
Terry, Malvern, PA
"Robert Peirce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
> to TIFF, but these files are huge! What file types can provide lossless
> compression, AND are something that a Windows user could open.
>
> BTW, when I sent a JPG file to a Windows user it showed up on his
> machine as a MIM, whatever that is. I sent the same files to my office
> computer and tghey came through as JPG. I don't know why.
>
> --
> Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
> (E-Mail Removed) [Mac]
> (E-Mail Removed) [Office]
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
Robert Peirce wrote:

> I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
> to TIFF, but these files are huge! What file types can provide lossless
> compression, AND are something that a Windows user could open.
>
> BTW, when I sent a JPG file to a Windows user it showed up on his
> machine as a MIM, whatever that is. I sent the same files to my office
> computer and tghey came through as JPG. I don't know why.
>

You Windows user doesn't have his broswer set up correctly.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Peirce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
In article <bm91tu$m0q$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Boris Harss <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hi, Robert!
>
> > I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
> > to TIFF, but these files are huge!

>
> Hmmm, maybe, this is a process issue. Once the file is a JPEG, you do
> not improve the quality by saving it as a TIFF (or anything else), the
> data is already lost. The process camera/computer/file-for-use should be:


Let me elaborate. I have a Nikon 4300. I can shoot in TIFF or various
levels of JPEG. Shooting in TIFF greatly limits what I can get on a
card, so I shoot in the highest level JPEG the camera supports -- FINE
2272x1704. This already does 4:1 compression so there is already some
loss. However I can get over 66 images on a 128Mb card instead of just
10.

When I transfer them to my Mac, I convert them to TIFF so that any
furthr manipulation will not cause loss beyond what I already have.
However, this produces an 11Mb file, which is more than five times
larger than the JPEG file.

Assuming I will continue to shoot in JPEG, which is a compromise but
seems to be likely, what I want to know is whether there is a commonly
used file type that will preserve the information I haven't already lost
but in a space closer to JPEG than to TIFF.

BTW, I am aware that shooting in TIFF (or RAW, as it is sometimes
called) will preserve the most information. I just don't want to pay
the cost for a typical snapshot, but I do want to be able to manipulate
the shot later without even more loss.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
(E-Mail Removed) [Mac]
(E-Mail Removed) [Office]

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2003
Robert Peirce wrote:

> In article <bm91tu$m0q$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Boris Harss <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi, Robert!
>>
>>
>>>I know JPG is a lossy compression form so I tend to convert everythihng
>>>to TIFF, but these files are huge!

>>
>>Hmmm, maybe, this is a process issue. Once the file is a JPEG, you do
>>not improve the quality by saving it as a TIFF (or anything else), the
>>data is already lost. The process camera/computer/file-for-use should be:

>
>
> Let me elaborate. I have a Nikon 4300. I can shoot in TIFF or various
> levels of JPEG. Shooting in TIFF greatly limits what I can get on a
> card, so I shoot in the highest level JPEG the camera supports -- FINE
> 2272x1704. This already does 4:1 compression so there is already some
> loss. However I can get over 66 images on a 128Mb card instead of just
> 10.
>
> When I transfer them to my Mac, I convert them to TIFF so that any
> furthr manipulation will not cause loss beyond what I already have.
> However, this produces an 11Mb file, which is more than five times
> larger than the JPEG file.
>
> Assuming I will continue to shoot in JPEG, which is a compromise but
> seems to be likely, what I want to know is whether there is a commonly
> used file type that will preserve the information I haven't already lost
> but in a space closer to JPEG than to TIFF.
>
> BTW, I am aware that shooting in TIFF (or RAW, as it is sometimes
> called) will preserve the most information. I just don't want to pay
> the cost for a typical snapshot, but I do want to be able to manipulate
> the shot later without even more loss.
>

TIFF is NOT RAW, and RAW is NOT TIFF. RAW formats vary from camera to
camera and maker to maker. TIFF is a standard for graphic data storage.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(Lossy) compression of 16bit images Alfred Molon Digital Photography 3 02-03-2006 07:52 AM
Non "lossy" formats ? John Fitzsimons Digital Photography 17 01-26-2006 09:45 AM
In Picasa2, Is Rotating A Vertical JPEG Image Lossy Or Lossless? Morton Linder Digital Photography 24 09-21-2005 01:19 PM
Lossy JPEG to ? for processing uufda Digital Photography 3 11-09-2004 10:05 AM
Rotating in some programs can be "lossy". RicktheStick Digital Photography 7 10-23-2003 12:08 PM



Advertisments