Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Link to Montana Fire TIFF File (Original) Re: [Leica] JPEG or TIFF
From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 14:12:26 -0400

It's not that great to be honest. When you zoom in there are quite a lot of
compression artifacts and the two elk are not very sharp. You could probably
sharpen it up a bit, but there is not a lot of room for manoevre. The pixel
dimensions are 1760 x 1087, which at 300 dpi gives you an image roughly 5x3
inches. At 150 dpi that would give you a 10x8. You might just get away with
it I guess if you weren't too picky.
- -- 
Johnny Deadman

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com



You should also consider the copyright situation of course.

- -- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

> From: John Coan <jcoan@alumni.duke.edu>
> Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:20:36 -0400
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Link to Montana Fire TIFF File (Original)  Re: [Leica] JPEG or TIFF
> 
> Speaking of TIFF files, remember the Montana fire picture I posted a
> link to last week?  Well, I did some exploring and found a link buried
> in the Web site for the US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land
> Management, Alaska Fire Service.  It was taken with a digital camera, so
> I figure this 5.6 MB TIFF file is the original format, and the best
> resolution of that picture we or anybody else is going to get.
> 
> I wish I had a decent printer so I could make an "original" print and
> display it.  
> 
> If anyone is interested here is the link and instructions on how to
> download the picture.  The link is in an FTP directory so it's not as
> simple as most Internet files to retrieve.  Let me know if you have
> problems. 
> 
> Also, if anyone does get it who is a digital photography whiz how about
> posting to the group something about the quality of the original file.
> IOW, how good is it?  If I were to take the file to a service bureau and
> ask them to make an 11 x 14, would it look decent?  Or, should I stick
> to 8 x 10?  
> 
> To get it click on http://fire.ak.blm.gov/
> 
> Then click on AFS FTP Site in the left frame.
> 
> Then click on jmac
> 
> The file name is elkbath.tif
> 
> 
> 
> John Poirier wrote:
>> 
>> Hi-
>> TIFF is the way to go, as it uses lossless compression.  JPEG uses a
>> "lossey" compression system.
>> 
>> When saving a JPEG file, you can choose the level of quality at which it
>> is saved, which basically amounts to selecting the amount of compression
>> to be applied. The more compression, the smaller the image file will be.
>> However, increasing compression also increases the occurrence of
>> artifacts such as poor colour rendition and pixellation.
>> 
>> A JPEG file saved at high quality can look just fine, but if you keep
>> the image in that format and repeatedly open and save it there will be
>> an ongoing loss of quality in terms of the artifacts mentioned above.
>> The lower the quality setting, the more obvious the degradation will be.
>> 
>> If you are short on hard drive space, high quality JPEGs are not totally
>> awful as a starter format while you're learning the ropes, but in the
>> long run TIFF format and storage on CD-ROMs is a better bet.
>> 
>> If you do need major compression for storage purposes, there are
>> proprietary systems such as Genuine Fractals (which I use) that provide
>> much better compression and rescaling than JPEG.
>> 
>> John Poirier
>> 
>> "Lee, Jonathan" wrote:
>>> 
>>> Luggers,
>>> 
>>> I am just trying out a HP S20 scanner.  The software allows me to save files
>>> in either TIFF or JPEG format. Is there any advantage in using one or ther
>>> other, assuming the color and BW images will be exported to Photoshop for
>>> manipulation and output.
>>> 
>>> Jonathan Lee