Message-Id: <200104191701.KAA14640@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:58:00 -0700 From: Bob Savage <mailto:bsavage@STANFORD.EDU> Subject: Re: TIFF2GIF query To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
<pre>
Another reason that you could see an increase in file size is that both GIF
and JPEG have a larger bit depth per pixel. Bi-tonal files save only one bit
per pixel (on or off) whereas GIF uses 8 bits per pixel (so each pixel can
have one of 256 colors), and JPEG uses 24 bits to save the pixel as being
one of approximately 16 million color possibilities. Since you are starting
with bitonal images I cannot imagine you will be seeing any file savings by
converting to either file format. Further I would really recommend that you
avoid the JPEG format because it will cause a degradation in your
information due to the compression algorithm it uses.
The reason someone would normally try to use GIF or JPEG instead of TIFF is
that they are starting out with a file that is already saving 24 bits per
pixel (TIFF supports multiple bit depths) and so in their case they are
either reducing the number of bits used to encode each pixel (GIF) or using
a severe compression system (JPEG) to shrink file size. You should probably
stick with TIFF.
Best of luck,
Bob Savage
-----------------------------
Media Preservation Unit
Stanford University Libraries
mailto:bsavage@stanford.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: IMAGELIB [mailto:mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]On Behalf Of David
Adams
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:07 PM
To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: TIFF2GIF query
For interest I have tried using photoshop to make a conversion from the
bitonal TIFF file to a GIF and JPEG format and each time the file size
increased.
I assume that this should be expected as the bitonal TIFF file is a
'compressed image format' to start with. (ITU Group 4 compression)
</pre>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 19 2001 - 12:05:46 CDT