TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Mike Fox on 7 Apr 2006 19:54 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
From: Rosemary on 7 Apr 2006 21:21 My understanding is that once you have lost the quality in going to JPEG you don't get it back. You can also back them up to a usb/firewire drive...I wouldn't save them as JPEGs though. R
From: Raphael Bustin on 7 Apr 2006 22:05 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: Mike Fox on 8 Apr 2006 06:35 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 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. 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? 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: Raphael Bustin on 8 Apr 2006 08:04
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 >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. > >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? Lots of programs can do that. I use a freebie called XnView. Personally, I'd convert a file to high-quality JPG rather than downsample it, but that's just me. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |