TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Roger on 8 Apr 2006 09:06 On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 10:35:16 GMT, Mike Fox <mikefox(a)Junoo.com> wrote: >So--at highest quality JEPG, even the one and only save to DVD will >loose quality, though it will be imperceptable. At 133 MB TIFFs, >this equates to 35 images to a DVD vs 60 images for JPEG. I'm going >to be scanning thousands of 35mm slides for a family history archive. >With a little luck, the DVD will last 20 years and be transcribed to Don't rely on luck. As in Vegas it only works for some. If you are truly doing thousands you need to save high quality duplicates and keep them in separate places. As it stands right now, no one knows just how long optical media will last be it CDs or DVDs that we burn. >the next generation of media. It's my hope the images will travel >100s of years of progress in imaging technology as they are passed >through future generations. Skimping now makes no sense. Data migration is usually pretty easy if the user has the capability of reading *both* types of media which is not often the case. Or course that is assuming there will be someone interested in doing the migration when it needs to be done. Another important point is continued data integrity verification. The DVDs should be tested periodically to make sure they are not failing and this needs to be a quality check, not just whether they can still be read. > >For now, however, 133 MB files are a bit cumbersome. I'll need to >resample them down to a usable size. Any suggestions on batch >processing bunches of images to downsize them for today's >applications? Most photo apps can do that. You can set up a macro in Photoshop to do it. Photoshop Elements and I believe Paint Shop Pro both have the ability built in. However you want to save the originals at the highest quality possible now. You can always down size them, but going back up is always a losing battle. Lost information from down sizing can not be regained. Some important things to remember: The original film *probably will have a longer life than the optical media if properly stored. You are still going to have said images so how do you plan on storing them? What do you plan on using for a catalog, or filing system? How will you link the new digital files back to the original images. One final caution: No matter how good your system, no matter how elaborate, sooner or later something in it will break and most often that break is caused by some one rather than the system. Contrary to what some have said on here, Hard drives DO NOT MAKE a GOOD ARCHIVAL SYSTEM!. Even in a RAID configuration they do not make a good archival system. When it comes to data integrity failure, 95 to 99% comes from the keyboard, not from hard drive failure. So when mirroring, or indexing the odds are when you run into a data corruption you are going to have it mirrored and indexed. However for that few percent it is nice to have the indexing and mirroring. If a drive does fail and I had a 250 Gig WD fail just a few weeks ago, then a hot swapable, indexed system is fantastic as you replace the drive and the system will rebuild it. For archival storage you need to go with either a high quality tape system which needs to be refreshed on occasion and stored properly, or optical which still has a few unknowns. HOWEVER I hasten to add that I've only lost a few drives over the years and as in the case with the 250, it was backed up. BTW the 250 expired just two weeks AFTER the warranty expired. I will also add that two of the systems here have RAIDs, but they are striped and each computer is backed up across a gigabit network. Instead of RAID mirroring, I use drive backup. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm is one place to start and a few ideas for a project of this kind. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com > >Thanks > >Mike > > > >On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:05:37 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:54:27 GMT, Mike Fox <guyisfoxy(a)yahoo.com> >>wrote: >> >>> I know the good vs the bad for TIFF vs JEPG, but I don't know it for >>>DVDs. >>> >>>I'm going to be scanning archival quality images of 35 mm slides that >>>in TIFF will come to 133 MB files. In JEPG, they'll be a lot less. >>>I'll be burning the files to a 4.7 GB DVD when I get enough to fill >>>one. >>> >>>My question; Will I have significant quality loss to scan them as >>>JEPGs and burn them to a DVD as JEPGs as an archive? In dirivative >>>use of the images, I'd resample them to TIFFs and edit and save them >>>as TIFFs. >> >> >>First off, I assume you'd be talking about the highest-quality >>ie., minimal-compression JPG settings. These will give you >>file sizes about 60% smaller than the equivalent 24 bit per >>pixel TIFFs. >> >>Yes, JPG is lossy, but on a high-res scan, I defy anyone to >>actually see the difference between a 24-bit TIFF and its >>equivalent high-quality/low-compression JPG. >> >>So here's what I do... I scan images as TIFFs, and when >>the time comes to archive them to DVD, I keep the JPG >>equivalent on my hard drive. So my DVDs have the TIF >>originals, and my hard drive has equivalent JPGs. If it's >>a critical application (rare) I may dig up the TIF from the >>archives, but in most cases the JPG will do just fine. >> >> >>rafe b >>www.terrapinphoto.com
From: J. Teske on 8 Apr 2006 11:47 Roger raises some good issues here. An additional one which concerns me when we are talking family history sorts of things is the continuation of the standards for CD's or DVD's, particularly when looking over a 100 year or so time span. I have a bunch of photos here of grandparents and great grandparents, some of which I can date to 1895. I have them in hard copy orignal prints. Admittedly they are faded and I have actually have been able to restore them digitally to the point that that other than for the clothing and hair styles, could have been taken in the last few years. Now I am making hard copies of these and hopefully should some descendent of mine find them, they can also preserve them in whatever medium might exist then. There are only a few of these photos. I am now faced with the same question for photos from my youth. I found a cache of negatives from my infancy (during WW II) and I'm now scanning and retouching these. I am putting them on CD-r's. Most are simply snapshots and have no reason ever to be printed larger than snapshot size. I think what I am going to do is have the CDr's printed up at Sam's or Costco at something like $0.13 each. I am doing the same for the hundreds of color slides I took when my own kids were little. Color slides are passe' for family viewing and my kids (now 40 and 39 in age) want to do scrapbooking. I'll give them a CD-r and THEY can go to Sam's and print up a couple hundred of these still sizable JPEGs. I am saving some really important stuff as TIFFs. Jon Teske W3JT (also ARRL Life member) On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:06:04 -0400, Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups(a)tm.net> wrote: >On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 10:35:16 GMT, Mike Fox <mikefox(a)Junoo.com> wrote: > >>So--at highest quality JEPG, even the one and only save to DVD will >>loose quality, though it will be imperceptable. At 133 MB TIFFs, >>this equates to 35 images to a DVD vs 60 images for JPEG. I'm going >>to be scanning thousands of 35mm slides for a family history archive. >>With a little luck, the DVD will last 20 years and be transcribed to > >Don't rely on luck. As in Vegas it only works for some. >If you are truly doing thousands you need to save high quality >duplicates and keep them in separate places. > >As it stands right now, no one knows just how long optical media will >last be it CDs or DVDs that we burn. > >>the next generation of media. It's my hope the images will travel >>100s of years of progress in imaging technology as they are passed >>through future generations. Skimping now makes no sense. > >Data migration is usually pretty easy if the user has the capability >of reading *both* types of media which is not often the case. Or >course that is assuming there will be someone interested in doing the >migration when it needs to be done. > >Another important point is continued data integrity verification. The >DVDs should be tested periodically to make sure they are not failing >and this needs to be a quality check, not just whether they can still >be read. > >> >>For now, however, 133 MB files are a bit cumbersome. I'll need to >>resample them down to a usable size. Any suggestions on batch >>processing bunches of images to downsize them for today's >>applications? > >Most photo apps can do that. You can set up a macro in Photoshop to >do it. Photoshop Elements and I believe Paint Shop Pro both have the >ability built in. > >However you want to save the originals at the highest quality possible >now. You can always down size them, but going back up is always a >losing battle. Lost information from down sizing can not be regained. > >Some important things to remember: The original film *probably will >have a longer life than the optical media if properly stored. You are >still going to have said images so how do you plan on storing them? >What do you plan on using for a catalog, or filing system? How will >you link the new digital files back to the original images. One final >caution: No matter how good your system, no matter how elaborate, >sooner or later something in it will break and most often that break >is caused by some one rather than the system. > >Contrary to what some have said on here, Hard drives DO NOT MAKE a >GOOD ARCHIVAL SYSTEM!. Even in a RAID configuration they do not make >a good archival system. When it comes to data integrity failure, 95 >to 99% comes from the keyboard, not from hard drive failure. So when >mirroring, or indexing the odds are when you run into a data >corruption you are going to have it mirrored and indexed. However for >that few percent it is nice to have the indexing and mirroring. If a >drive does fail and I had a 250 Gig WD fail just a few weeks ago, then >a hot swapable, indexed system is fantastic as you replace the drive >and the system will rebuild it. > >For archival storage you need to go with either a high quality tape >system which needs to be refreshed on occasion and stored properly, or >optical which still has a few unknowns. > >HOWEVER I hasten to add that I've only lost a few drives over the >years and as in the case with the 250, it was backed up. BTW the 250 >expired just two weeks AFTER the warranty expired. > >I will also add that two of the systems here have RAIDs, but they are >striped and each computer is backed up across a gigabit network. >Instead of RAID mirroring, I use drive backup. > >http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm is one place to start and a >few ideas for a project of this kind. > >Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) >(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) >www.rogerhalstead.com >> >>Thanks >> >>Mike >> >> >> >>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:05:37 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:54:27 GMT, Mike Fox <guyisfoxy(a)yahoo.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> I know the good vs the bad for TIFF vs JEPG, but I don't know it for >>>>DVDs. >>>> >>>>I'm going to be scanning archival quality images of 35 mm slides that >>>>in TIFF will come to 133 MB files. In JEPG, they'll be a lot less. >>>>I'll be burning the files to a 4.7 GB DVD when I get enough to fill >>>>one. >>>> >>>>My question; Will I have significant quality loss to scan them as >>>>JEPGs and burn them to a DVD as JEPGs as an archive? In dirivative >>>>use of the images, I'd resample them to TIFFs and edit and save them >>>>as TIFFs. >>> >>> >>>First off, I assume you'd be talking about the highest-quality >>>ie., minimal-compression JPG settings. These will give you >>>file sizes about 60% smaller than the equivalent 24 bit per >>>pixel TIFFs. >>> >>>Yes, JPG is lossy, but on a high-res scan, I defy anyone to >>>actually see the difference between a 24-bit TIFF and its >>>equivalent high-quality/low-compression JPG. >>> >>>So here's what I do... I scan images as TIFFs, and when >>>the time comes to archive them to DVD, I keep the JPG >>>equivalent on my hard drive. So my DVDs have the TIF >>>originals, and my hard drive has equivalent JPGs. If it's >>>a critical application (rare) I may dig up the TIF from the >>>archives, but in most cases the JPG will do just fine. >>> >>> >>>rafe b >>>www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Roger on 8 Apr 2006 23:23 On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:47:07 -0400, J. Teske <jdteske(a)comcast.net> wrote: It's my belief that we will need (it will be necessary) to migrate to a new form of media for long term storage every 10 to 20 years. I think 20 would most likely be stretching our luck well into the danger zone. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com >Roger raises some good issues here. An additional one which concerns >me when we are talking family history sorts of things is the >continuation of the standards for CD's or DVD's, particularly when >looking over a 100 year or so time span. I have a bunch of photos here >of grandparents and great grandparents, some of which I can date to >1895. I have them in hard copy orignal prints. Admittedly they are >faded and I have actually have been able to restore them digitally to >the point that that other than for the clothing and hair styles, could >have been taken in the last few years. Now I am making hard copies of >these and hopefully should some descendent of mine find them, they can >also preserve them in whatever medium might exist then. There are only >a few of these photos. I am now faced with the same question for >photos from my youth. I found a cache of negatives from my infancy >(during WW II) and I'm now scanning and retouching these. I am putting >them on CD-r's. Most are simply snapshots and have no reason ever to >be printed larger than snapshot size. I think what I am going to do is >have the CDr's printed up at Sam's or Costco at something like $0.13 >each. I am doing the same for the hundreds of color slides I took when >my own kids were little. Color slides are passe' for family viewing >and my kids (now 40 and 39 in age) want to do scrapbooking. I'll give >them a CD-r and THEY can go to Sam's and print up a couple hundred of >these still sizable JPEGs. I am saving some really important stuff as >TIFFs. > >Jon Teske W3JT (also ARRL Life member) > >On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:06:04 -0400, Roger ><Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups(a)tm.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 10:35:16 GMT, Mike Fox <mikefox(a)Junoo.com> wrote: >> >>>So--at highest quality JEPG, even the one and only save to DVD will >>>loose quality, though it will be imperceptable. At 133 MB TIFFs, >>>this equates to 35 images to a DVD vs 60 images for JPEG. I'm going >>>to be scanning thousands of 35mm slides for a family history archive. >>>With a little luck, the DVD will last 20 years and be transcribed to >> >>Don't rely on luck. As in Vegas it only works for some. >>If you are truly doing thousands you need to save high quality >>duplicates and keep them in separate places. >> >>As it stands right now, no one knows just how long optical media will >>last be it CDs or DVDs that we burn. >> >>>the next generation of media. It's my hope the images will travel >>>100s of years of progress in imaging technology as they are passed >>>through future generations. Skimping now makes no sense. >> >>Data migration is usually pretty easy if the user has the capability >>of reading *both* types of media which is not often the case. Or >>course that is assuming there will be someone interested in doing the >>migration when it needs to be done. >> >>Another important point is continued data integrity verification. The >>DVDs should be tested periodically to make sure they are not failing >>and this needs to be a quality check, not just whether they can still >>be read. >> >>> >>>For now, however, 133 MB files are a bit cumbersome. I'll need to >>>resample them down to a usable size. Any suggestions on batch >>>processing bunches of images to downsize them for today's >>>applications? >> >>Most photo apps can do that. You can set up a macro in Photoshop to >>do it. Photoshop Elements and I believe Paint Shop Pro both have the >>ability built in. >> >>However you want to save the originals at the highest quality possible >>now. You can always down size them, but going back up is always a >>losing battle. Lost information from down sizing can not be regained. >> >>Some important things to remember: The original film *probably will >>have a longer life than the optical media if properly stored. You are >>still going to have said images so how do you plan on storing them? >>What do you plan on using for a catalog, or filing system? How will >>you link the new digital files back to the original images. One final >>caution: No matter how good your system, no matter how elaborate, >>sooner or later something in it will break and most often that break >>is caused by some one rather than the system. >> >>Contrary to what some have said on here, Hard drives DO NOT MAKE a >>GOOD ARCHIVAL SYSTEM!. Even in a RAID configuration they do not make >>a good archival system. When it comes to data integrity failure, 95 >>to 99% comes from the keyboard, not from hard drive failure. So when >>mirroring, or indexing the odds are when you run into a data >>corruption you are going to have it mirrored and indexed. However for >>that few percent it is nice to have the indexing and mirroring. If a >>drive does fail and I had a 250 Gig WD fail just a few weeks ago, then >>a hot swapable, indexed system is fantastic as you replace the drive >>and the system will rebuild it. >> >>For archival storage you need to go with either a high quality tape >>system which needs to be refreshed on occasion and stored properly, or >>optical which still has a few unknowns. >> >>HOWEVER I hasten to add that I've only lost a few drives over the >>years and as in the case with the 250, it was backed up. BTW the 250 >>expired just two weeks AFTER the warranty expired. >> >>I will also add that two of the systems here have RAIDs, but they are >>striped and each computer is backed up across a gigabit network. >>Instead of RAID mirroring, I use drive backup. >> >>http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm is one place to start and a >>few ideas for a project of this kind. >> >>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) >>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) >>www.rogerhalstead.com >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>Mike >>> >>> >>> >>>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:05:37 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:54:27 GMT, Mike Fox <guyisfoxy(a)yahoo.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know the good vs the bad for TIFF vs JEPG, but I don't know it for >>>>>DVDs. >>>>> >>>>>I'm going to be scanning archival quality images of 35 mm slides that >>>>>in TIFF will come to 133 MB files. In JEPG, they'll be a lot less. >>>>>I'll be burning the files to a 4.7 GB DVD when I get enough to fill >>>>>one. >>>>> >>>>>My question; Will I have significant quality loss to scan them as >>>>>JEPGs and burn them to a DVD as JEPGs as an archive? In dirivative >>>>>use of the images, I'd resample them to TIFFs and edit and save them >>>>>as TIFFs. >>>> >>>> >>>>First off, I assume you'd be talking about the highest-quality >>>>ie., minimal-compression JPG settings. These will give you >>>>file sizes about 60% smaller than the equivalent 24 bit per >>>>pixel TIFFs. >>>> >>>>Yes, JPG is lossy, but on a high-res scan, I defy anyone to >>>>actually see the difference between a 24-bit TIFF and its >>>>equivalent high-quality/low-compression JPG. >>>> >>>>So here's what I do... I scan images as TIFFs, and when >>>>the time comes to archive them to DVD, I keep the JPG >>>>equivalent on my hard drive. So my DVDs have the TIF >>>>originals, and my hard drive has equivalent JPGs. If it's >>>>a critical application (rare) I may dig up the TIF from the >>>>archives, but in most cases the JPG will do just fine. >>>> >>>> >>>>rafe b >>>>www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Alan Meyer on 12 Apr 2006 13:50 "Mike Fox" <guyisfoxy(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jcud32djpr5nm07q2c808kb1gtljolcul7(a)4ax.com... > I know the good vs the bad for TIFF vs JEPG, but I don't know it for > DVDs. > > I'm going to be scanning archival quality images of 35 mm slides that > in TIFF will come to 133 MB files. In JEPG, they'll be a lot less. > I'll be burning the files to a 4.7 GB DVD when I get enough to fill > one. > > My question; Will I have significant quality loss to scan them as > JEPGs and burn them to a DVD as JEPGs as an archive? In dirivative > use of the images, I'd resample them to TIFFs and edit and save them > as TIFFs. > > Thanks\\Mike I believe that the TIFF vs JPEG issue is a red herring. I defy you to look at an image on screen or on paper from a TIFF vs. one from a JPEG compressed to 1/10 original size, and tell which is which. If you blow up the images to the point where you can see individual pixels, you will see that some of the pixels are different in the two images. But even then, unless you know in advance, you won't be able to tell which was the original, and you still won't be able to see the differences when viewed as images instead of as individual pixels. Furthermore, if any of your descendants view these images, (and I hope they will - I also scan old family images for the same reason) the tiny differences in pixel values wouldn't mean anything to them even if they could see them. They'll be looking at the faces, the houses, the scenes, in other words the content. You'll get much more mileage out of careful scanning with good color restoration, dust removal, etc., than out of using TIFF. So I store my scanned family archive as JPEGs only. The one thing that I strongly suggest that you can do for your descendants is to write text to accompany the pictures. Write down who the people are, what their relationships are to each other, what they did in their lives, what they were like as people, what those buildings and settings and scenes are in the images. Then store those notes on the same DVDs as the images. And don't use Microsoft Word to write the notes (or at least don't store them as Word files). Who knows if Word will exist 100 years from now, or if Microsoft will exist. Store them as plain old text files that any application whatsoever can read. Good luck. Alan
From: Surfer! on 12 Apr 2006 18:12
In message <uJKdnfHCnLcuoaDZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Alan Meyer <ameyer2(a)yahoo.com> writes <snip> > >And don't use Microsoft Word to write the notes (or at least >don't store them as Word files). Who knows if Word will >exist 100 years from now, or if Microsoft will exist. Store them >as plain old text files that any application whatsoever can read. Who knows if 'plain old text files' or JPGs can be read in 100 years - or if anyone will care? -- Surfer! Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net |