Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
Received: from inas008.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by inav007.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AV-3.00) with ESMTP id j8P2w5Of007416
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:58:05 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from inmx010.isp.belgacom.be (inmx010.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.2.73])
        by inas008.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AS-2.03) with ESMTP id j8P2vveX023864
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:57:57 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (r153.dmsolutions.ca [209.217.116.153] (may be forged))
        by inmx010.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id j8P2vqgw013217
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:57:53 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8P2t1FQ023984;
	Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:55:04 -0400
Received: from qproxy.gmail.com (qproxy.gmail.com [72.14.204.204])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8P2sxx9023974
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:54:59 -0400
Received: by qproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id p35so389787qbb
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=GsZVxqZA25SwmhNlT5lneXEYXWjcD8tpVUaQnPiZZUcRvRjjVUNQgzc5DWJflAzRlVZ9xdEE8NAVeaizjYCGwnUOER9N7/bzJSqf96gN7itXlk1sjPIDcxZuiyN7Vol7GiJvL22qc6Cs8X8netgY82eCZDFudrM/pN0Bp3hvXMU=
Received: by 10.65.159.19 with SMTP id l19mr407842qbo;
	Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.155.11 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <931f8ea905092419546ad5fde0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:54:58 -0400
From: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com>
To: Joris <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes
In-Reply-To: <002701c5c170$7444c8d0$d9b3f551@dfgrrxsknr4e>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <931f8ea905092314116e0918ce@mail.gmail.com>
	<002701c5c170$7444c8d0$d9b3f551@dfgrrxsknr4e>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by duke.maptools.org id
	j8P2sxx9023974
Cc: TIFF <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com>
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
X-UIDL: 000000000023ceae.00000c64
X-MSP-STORE: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:58:12 +0200
Status:   

On 9/24/05, Joris <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be> wrote:
> It's hard to define 'wide support' in an objective manner. From where
> I'm standing, it sure does *seem* (=subjective) to be widely supported,
> though. I now a few attempts at TIFF codec that only support very
> limited subsets (only uncompressed, or only G3 or G4 compressed, for
> example), there's also Photoshop using Adobe's code base, and there's a
> vast amount of apps using LibTiff. The first cannot be expected to
> support flate compression, but the second and third do.

Joris,

It is true that I don't have any objective information on breadth of
support for deflate.  Perhaps I am still think deflate isn't widely
supported in TIFF because it wasn't 10 years ago.

> > Are there any opinions on possibly incorporating LZMA as an
> > additional compression type?
>
> What is the yield? It'll take some time before the new compression mode
> 'penetrates' the software pool 'out there', so is it worth it? If the
> yield is just 5% or even up to 15% better compression, I have doubts
> about this.

I don't really know the yield.  Though if it was getting towards 15% that
would be quite significant.

> Also, note Chris' comments on prediction. Chances are you're using flate
> compression without prediction, and making this small adjustment could
> yield considerably already.

To be honest I don't know much about the predictor stuff.

> Whether or not this applies to your quest... What is your quest? How did
> you come to seek better lossless compression, for what application?

I wouldn't really say I'm on a quest.  More of an idle query.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
