lzw or lossless jpg?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ken Weitzel, Sep 11, 2004.

  1. Ken Weitzel

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Hi...

    The peter principle is working here... (things
    expand to fill the space available for their storage)

    Wondering if anyone has any opinions on the relative
    merits of lossless jpg versus lzw compressed tiff's
    for archiving?

    Thanks, and take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Sep 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ken Weitzel

    Gadgets Guest

    jpgs are more widely used, some progs don't like LZW tiff or print much
    slower with LZW on, data corruption with a jpg will render all pixels after
    the corruption point as garbled, with tiff it may only be a few lines...

    Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com
     
    Gadgets, Sep 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> wrote:

    > jpgs are more widely used, some progs don't like LZW tiff or print much
    > slower with LZW on, data corruption with a jpg will render all pixels after
    > the corruption point as garbled, with tiff it may only be a few lines...
    >
    > Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    > Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com


    An LZW tiff will suffer as much damage as a JPEG. The problem is that
    the corruption is amplified by the compression.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Sep 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Ken Weitzel

    Eric Gill Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote in
    news::

    > In article <>,
    > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> wrote:
    >
    >> jpgs are more widely used, some progs don't like LZW tiff or print
    >> much slower with LZW on, data corruption with a jpg will render all
    >> pixels after the corruption point as garbled, with tiff it may only
    >> be a few lines...
    >>
    >> Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    >> Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

    >
    > An LZW tiff will suffer as much damage as a JPEG.


    Well, that explains why LZW is considered "lossless."

    I'm not sure how. Perhaps you'd like to explain?

    > The problem is that
    > the corruption is amplified by the compression.


    In a JPEG, the "corruption" is caused by the compression.

    I think you are very confused.
     
    Eric Gill, Sep 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Ken Weitzel

    Trev Guest

    "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > jpgs are more widely used, some progs don't like LZW tiff or print much
    > slower with LZW on, data corruption with a jpg will render all pixels
    > after
    > the corruption point as garbled, with tiff it may only be a few lines...
    >
    > Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    > Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

    The opposite of above LZW tiff has been around for years most Graphic
    editors can handle them. Lossless Jpeg Is newish and only the high end
    programs accommodate them. But the real question is if you archive them now
    Which is most likely to be still around in years to come, and has not
    changed so that it no longer opens your image.
     
    Trev, Sep 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Ken Weitzel

    Grim Guest

    "Eric Gill" <> wrote
    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> jpgs are more widely used, some progs don't like LZW tiff or print
    > >> much slower with LZW on, data corruption with a jpg will render all
    > >> pixels after the corruption point as garbled, with tiff it may only
    > >> be a few lines...
    > >>
    > >> Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    > >> Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

    > >
    > > An LZW tiff will suffer as much damage as a JPEG.

    >
    > Well, that explains why LZW is considered "lossless."
    >
    > I'm not sure how. Perhaps you'd like to explain?


    Are you intentionally trying to be dense?

    "Lossless" compression refers to no loss of detail when the image is
    compressed. LZW does this; JPEG does not. Of course you'll likely lose
    detail if the file is corrupted! That has nothing to do with lossless
    compression, other than losing X bytes of a compressed file will likely lose
    more information than X bytes of an uncompressed file.

    > > The problem is that
    > > the corruption is amplified by the compression.

    >
    > In a JPEG, the "corruption" is caused by the compression.
    >
    > I think you are very confused.


    I think you are.
     
    Grim, Sep 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Ken Weitzel

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Ken Weitzel wrote:

    >
    > Hi...
    >
    > The peter principle is working here... (things
    > expand to fill the space available for their storage)
    >
    > Wondering if anyone has any opinions on the relative
    > merits of lossless jpg versus lzw compressed tiff's
    > for archiving?


    Lossless JPEG isn't well supported by the standard
    crop of image editors and viewers.

    I've never used it, but it would seem there really wasn't
    much of an advantage over LZW TIFF.

    The noteable thing about JPEG is the fact it *is* lossy.
    This allows for incredible compression.

    Take away the loss and I can't see JPEG being any better
    than LZW TIFF. (Not unless they've come up with a better
    algorithm than that developed by Lempel Ziv and Welch.
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Ken Weitzel

    Gadgets Guest

    Not talking about lossy artefacting, talking about the effects of data
    corruption, particularly in a long term storage situation...

    Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com
     
    Gadgets, Sep 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> writes:

    > Not talking about lossy artefacting, talking about the effects of data
    > corruption, particularly in a long term storage situation...


    Frankly, virtually anything you're goingto use for storage will see
    large catastrophic data loss anyway.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Sep 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Ken Weitzel

    spodosaurus Guest

    Grim wrote:
    > "Eric Gill" <> wrote
    >
    >>Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <>,
    >>> "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>jpgs are more widely used, some progs don't like LZW tiff or print
    >>>>much slower with LZW on, data corruption with a jpg will render all
    >>>>pixels after the corruption point as garbled, with tiff it may only
    >>>>be a few lines...
    >>>>
    >>>>Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    >>>>Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com
    >>>
    >>>An LZW tiff will suffer as much damage as a JPEG.

    >>
    >>Well, that explains why LZW is considered "lossless."
    >>
    >>I'm not sure how. Perhaps you'd like to explain?

    >
    >
    > Are you intentionally trying to be dense?
    >
    > "Lossless" compression refers to no loss of detail when the image is
    > compressed.


    No shit dude, he was being sarcastic :) The earlier poster suggested
    that there was loss.

    > LZW does this; JPEG does not.


    The original poster was not talking about regular jpg, he specifically
    stated lossless jpg, which others in this thread do not appear to be
    familiar with.


    > Of course you'll likely lose
    > detail if the file is corrupted! That has nothing to do with lossless
    > compression, other than losing X bytes of a compressed file will likely lose
    > more information than X bytes of an uncompressed file.
    >
    >
    >>> The problem is that
    >>>the corruption is amplified by the compression.

    >>
    >>In a JPEG, the "corruption" is caused by the compression.
    >>
    >>I think you are very confused.

    >
    >
    > I think you are.
    >
    >



    --
    spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
     
    spodosaurus, Sep 11, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <Xns956153E8EBAD8ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246>,
    Eric Gill <> wrote:

    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> jpgs are more widely used, some progs don't like LZW tiff or print
    > >> much slower with LZW on, data corruption with a jpg will render all
    > >> pixels after the corruption point as garbled, with tiff it may only
    > >> be a few lines...
    > >>
    > >> Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    > >> Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

    > >
    > > An LZW tiff will suffer as much damage as a JPEG.

    >
    > Well, that explains why LZW is considered "lossless."
    >
    > I'm not sure how. Perhaps you'd like to explain?


    Sure, read what I was replying to.


    > > The problem is that
    > > the corruption is amplified by the compression.

    >
    > In a JPEG, the "corruption" is caused by the compression.
    >
    > I think you are very confused.


    I was responding to somebody talking about data corruption. Any
    compressed format, JPEG or LZW TIFF, is more sensitive to data
    corruption than an uncompressed format.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Sep 12, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    says...
    > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> writes:
    >
    > > Not talking about lossy artefacting, talking about the effects of data
    > > corruption, particularly in a long term storage situation...

    >
    > Frankly, virtually anything you're goingto use for storage will see
    > large catastrophic data loss anyway.
    >
    > B>


    Whatever, you daffy Luddite.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Brian C. Baird <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> writes:
    > >
    > > > Not talking about lossy artefacting, talking about the effects of data
    > > > corruption, particularly in a long term storage situation...

    > >
    > > Frankly, virtually anything you're goingto use for storage will see
    > > large catastrophic data loss anyway.
    > >

    > Whatever, you daffy Luddite.


    Are you going to make your usual stupid claims that the media will
    never ever in a million years develop errors again? In which case, you
    don't belong in this thread becausue the original poster doesn't
    belong to your faith, he's presupposing errors.

    Of course, maybe you've converted and instead have the equally stupid
    view that modern digital media is likely to develop single-point
    errors? I somehow doubt this.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Sep 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Ken Weitzel

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that Ken Weitzel <> stated that:

    >The peter principle is working here... (things
    >expand to fill the space available for their storage)


    Too true.

    >Wondering if anyone has any opinions on the relative
    >merits of lossless jpg versus lzw compressed tiff's
    >for archiving?


    I shoot RAW mode, & don't wish to degrade my originals by compressing
    them, so my solution was to buy a DVD burner & some big disk satchels.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Sep 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Ken Weitzel

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that Bruce Murphy <> stated that:

    >Are you going to make your usual stupid claims that the media will
    >never ever in a million years develop errors again?


    I don't think anyone has ever made such a ridiculous claim in this
    group.

    > In which case, you
    >don't belong in this thread becausue the original poster doesn't
    >belong to your faith, he's presupposing errors.


    If you have a brain, you recopy your digital archives every few years.
    (Or at least the stuff that you still care about.)
    I have files on this machine that were origially on 8" floppies 20+
    years ago & have been migrated from there through several generations of
    backup media types.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Sep 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    writes:

    > Kibo informs me that Bruce Murphy <> stated that:
    >
    > >Are you going to make your usual stupid claims that the media will
    > >never ever in a million years develop errors again?

    >
    > I don't think anyone has ever made such a ridiculous claim in this
    > group.


    It was either him or someone else replying to him who made this very
    claim a month or two back.

    > > In which case, you
    > >don't belong in this thread becausue the original poster doesn't
    > >belong to your faith, he's presupposing errors.

    >
    > If you have a brain, you recopy your digital archives every few years.
    > (Or at least the stuff that you still care about.)


    Of course, and keep multiple copies on different media.

    > I have files on this machine that were origially on 8" floppies 20+
    > years ago & have been migrated from there through several generations of
    > backup media types.


    Yes, as do I, however idiots like the abovementioned were spouting abuse
    at me when I pointed out the lengths one has to go through to achieve
    just this end.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Sep 13, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    says...
    > >Are you going to make your usual stupid claims that the media will
    > >never ever in a million years develop errors again?

    >
    > I don't think anyone has ever made such a ridiculous claim in this
    > group.
    >
    > > In which case, you
    > >don't belong in this thread becausue the original poster doesn't
    > >belong to your faith, he's presupposing errors.

    >
    > If you have a brain, you recopy your digital archives every few years.
    > (Or at least the stuff that you still care about.)
    > I have files on this machine that were origially on 8" floppies 20+
    > years ago & have been migrated from there through several generations of
    > backup media types.


    Don't try to rationalize with Bruce. He's immune to reason.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 13, 2004
    #17
  18. Ken Weitzel

    Drifter Guest

    On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:30:08 GMT, Ken Weitzel <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Hi...
    >
    >The peter principle is working here... (things
    >expand to fill the space available for their storage)
    >
    >Wondering if anyone has any opinions on the relative
    >merits of lossless jpg versus lzw compressed tiff's
    >for archiving?
    >
    >Thanks, and take care.
    >
    >Ken


    Okay, so I'm not exactly answering within the bounds of your question,
    but if lossless is the plan, I use .PNG

    "lossless JPG" still isn't and you run into all kinds of compatibility
    issues with lzw compressed tiff (or at least I have before)


    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
     
    Drifter, Sep 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Ken Weitzel

    Drifter Guest

    On 12 Sep 2004 13:10:13 +0800, Bruce Murphy <>
    wrote:

    >Brian C. Baird <> writes:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >> > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus..com> writes:
    >> >
    >> > > Not talking about lossy artefacting, talking about the effects of data
    >> > > corruption, particularly in a long term storage situation...
    >> >
    >> > Frankly, virtually anything you're goingto use for storage will see
    >> > large catastrophic data loss anyway.
    >> >

    >> Whatever, you daffy Luddite.

    >
    >Are you going to make your usual stupid claims that the media will
    >never ever in a million years develop errors again? In which case, you
    >don't belong in this thread becausue the original poster doesn't
    >belong to your faith, he's presupposing errors.
    >
    >Of course, maybe you've converted and instead have the equally stupid
    >view that modern digital media is likely to develop single-point
    >errors? I somehow doubt this.
    >


    Bruce... you are feeding the trolls again. (slaps ruler across your
    hand) stop that! <grin>.


    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
     
    Drifter, Sep 14, 2004
    #19
  20. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Brian C. Baird <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > >Are you going to make your usual stupid claims that the media will
    > > >never ever in a million years develop errors again?

    > >
    > > I don't think anyone has ever made such a ridiculous claim in this
    > > group.
    > >
    > > > In which case, you
    > > >don't belong in this thread becausue the original poster doesn't
    > > >belong to your faith, he's presupposing errors.

    > >
    > > If you have a brain, you recopy your digital archives every few years.
    > > (Or at least the stuff that you still care about.)
    > > I have files on this machine that were origially on 8" floppies 20+
    > > years ago & have been migrated from there through several generations of
    > > backup media types.

    >
    > Don't try to rationalize with Bruce. He's immune to reason.


    Wow, my own personal clueless troll. Do you plan to follow me around
    USENET making stupid little comments like this one?

    Love the way you reply here, rather that to my reply agreeing with
    this poster.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Sep 14, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rili

    jpg lossless rotation for free with IrfanView

    Rili, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,101
  2. Gary Fritz

    Canon A70 Q's: lossless rotation, JPG quality

    Gary Fritz, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,326
    Gary Fritz
    Oct 20, 2003
  3. louise

    Why does lossless jpg rotation make a larger file?

    louise, Jan 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    376
    Ed Wurster
    Jan 29, 2004
  4. Differences in jpg lossless rotate freeware

    , Jan 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    703
    John Fitzsimons
    Jan 7, 2005
  5. irfanview lossless jpg rotation

    , Sep 24, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,640
    JC Dill
    Oct 1, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page