Re: What DB to use for lots of IMAGE files?

Doug McAllister wrote:
>
> Jay Lazarus wrote:
> >
> > You're trading speed for accurancy here. tiffs don't lose content,
> > but are far bigger to store an equivalent image than the jpeg/gif
> > options. Can your viewers tolerate some distortion? If so,
> > avoid tiff and take your savings to the speed bank. If not, better
> > get a bigger hardware budget (for more cycles, memory buffers, faster
> > disk & network controllers, faster spindles, etc).
> If you are doing business documents which don't need color, use group
> III fax compression. It is very fast and many business scanners (such as
> those made by Ricoh, Fujitsu, and Kodak) will be able to do the
> compression in hardware at scan time. This will reduce the average page
> of a business letter which will scan to about 1 meg down to about 30k.
> Don't use .gif or .tif for anything serious. These were early
> implementations of compression and do not work nearly as well as jpeg or
> mpeg.

This is not a news group to discuss image format. That is why I was not willing to argue against the first post. But it is the second time incorrect message has been disseminated, I must at least let others know a different opinion.

First of all, the academic term for "jpeg" is "lossy compression" which apparently tells you it is worse. If you cannot tolerate distortion, use tiff. Most of government agencies are using tiff format. Does that mean all government agencies are morons? Please discard the comment: avoid tif for anything serious. "tiff file is bigger" is another nusance.

Here is a short comparison of tiff and jpeg format.

		image format	compressions
	tiff	tiff		group III, group IV, jpeg, lzw, ...
	jpeg	jpeg		jpeg

Group III and IV only handles black/white. jpeg is designed to handle grayscale and color image.

Chao Y. Din Received on Sat May 24 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT