Return-Path: <tiff-admin@remotesensing.org>
Received: from inmx010.isp.belgacom.be (inmx010.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.2.73])
        by mailst006.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.9/8.12.9/Skynet-MAILSTORE-2.14) with ESMTP id i51Co972015101
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:50:09 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-admin@remotesensing.org>)
Received: from yoda.imagelinks.com ([208.24.120.44])
        by inmx010.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id i51Co1Wr019324
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-admin@remotesensing.org>)
Received: from yoda.imagelinks.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by yoda.imagelinks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i51Cjqq02269;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:45:52 -0400
Received: from mailhost.informatix.co.uk (informatixdsl.claranet.co.uk [80.168.136.49])
	by yoda.imagelinks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i51Cfxq02203
	for <tiff@remotesensing.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:42:00 -0400
Received: from [10.4.0.10] (192.168.0.2) by mailhost.informatix.co.uk (Worldmail 1.3.167) for tiff@remotesensing.org; 1 Jun 2004 12:50:37 +0100
Message-ID: <40BC6D8D.8070302@informatix.co.uk>
From: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Subject: Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives
References: <p06020407bcdaeefbd542@[153.32.220.138]> <40B5C665.2020807@informatix.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <40B5C665.2020807@informatix.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tiff-admin@remotesensing.org
Errors-To: tiff-admin@remotesensing.org
X-BeenThere: tiff@remotesensing.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@remotesensing.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://remotesensing.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.remotesensing.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://remotesensing.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://remotesensing.org/pipermail/tiff/>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:50:37 +0100
X-UIDL: 55d9455949d5b869ef24687b0aabc097

I wrote:

> This is a serious question, and not intended as a flame:  if I need to 
> support a new file format to get >2/4GB support, why wouldn't I just use 
> PNG?

...and got several informative answers which basically fall in to two camps:


(a) So PNG can handle images > 4GB. That's precious little use without 
the ability to do random access to parts of the image.

Having thought about it a bit, I agree entirely.


(b) Tiff can handle <data-format-of-choice-for-my-application>.

This is both a strength /and/ a weakness. The fact that Tiff has so many 
different ways of storing data is handy for the writer, but a real pain 
for the reader. Maybe PNG isn't flexible enough, but Tiff is so flexible 
that supporting the full spec is a lot of work.

-- 
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
Tiff@remotesensing.org
http://remotesensing.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
