TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Noons on 20 Apr 2006 21:29 Scott W wrote: > Well I did give you the entire file to compare too in my sample. But > please if you don't like my image how about one of yours, just a small > crop will do. > > In case you missed mine here it is again Sorry, will be away for a few days. Will look into this when I come back. Thanks for providing the full file to have a look at. > I did the test, here is my crop, one side was save as a jpeg the > other is the original tiff. > http://www.sewcon.com/tiff_vs_jpeg/compare.tif 2.8 MB > Note not all browsers will view a 16 bit tiff and so this might have to > > be downloaded and viewed in something like Photoshop. > This is an overview of the full image > http://www.sewcon.com/tiff_vs_jpeg/overview.jpg > And for those just for grins this is the full image as a fairly highly > compressed jpeg > http://www.sewcon.com/tiff_vs_jpeg/overview.jpg 13.5 MB
From: Scott W on 20 Apr 2006 21:37 Noons wrote: > Sorry, will be away for a few days. Will look into this when > I come back. Thanks for providing the full file to have a look at. More to the point, when you have time post an image of yours that you believe would look worse as a jpeg. Untill you do this thowing rocks at other's examples is rather silly. Scott
From: Noons on 20 Apr 2006 21:58 Scott W wrote: > > More to the point, when you have time post an image of yours that you > believe would look worse as a jpeg. I have in the past. Will put them up again soon. > Untill you do this thowing rocks at > other's examples is rather silly. Sorry, the ones from rafe were not examples: they were totally out of context. I did not throw rocks at yours for the simple reason that I did not see them. Or are you and rafe one and the same? If so, I seriously advise you to stop using various aliases: one is enough.
From: Scott W on 20 Apr 2006 22:01 Scott W wrote: > be downloaded and viewed in something like Photoshop. > This is an overview of the full image > http://www.sewcon.com/tiff_vs_jpeg/overview.jpg > And for those just for grins this is the full image as a fairly highly > compressed jpeg > http://www.sewcon.com/tiff_vs_jpeg/overview.jpg 13.5 MB > I see I put in the wrong link to the full image, here is the right one. http://www.sewcon.com/tiff_vs_jpeg/fullimage_high_compress.jpg 13.5 MB I also went ahead and put the full image up as a high quality jpeg http://www.sewcon.com/tiff_vs_jpeg/fullimage.jpg 30 MB. The full tiff image is over 220 MB so I won't be putting that up. Scott
From: Scott W on 20 Apr 2006 22:32
Noons wrote: > Scott W wrote: > > > > > More to the point, when you have time post an image of yours that you > > believe would look worse as a jpeg. > > I have in the past. Will put them up again soon. > > > Untill you do this thowing rocks at > > other's examples is rather silly. > > Sorry, the ones from rafe were not examples: they were totally out > of context. I did not throw rocks at yours for the simple reason that > I did not see them. Or are you and rafe one and the same? If so, > I seriously advise you to stop using various aliases: one is > enough. So why keep telling us what is wrong with Rafe's and just post your own? Is it really that hard? FWIW I think rafe's examples shows very well that you havn't got a clue about what you talking about. Scott |