Received: from inav032.isp.belgacom.be (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by inav032.isp.belgacom.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E511FAF01F
	for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Mon,  5 Feb 2007 20:26:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from inas026.isp.belgacom.be (inas026.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.4.250])
	by inav032.isp.belgacom.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id D896CAF027
	for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Mon,  5 Feb 2007 20:26:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from inmx010.isp.belgacom.be (inmx010.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.4.73])
        by inas026.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AS-2.03) with ESMTP id l15JQALf028463
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:26:11 +0100
        (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 (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id l15JQ0iM015682
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:26:01 +0100
        (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 l15JGHe7029540;
	Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:16:24 -0500
Received: from exprod6og51.obsmtp.com (exprod6og51.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.183])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with SMTP id l15JG195029512
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:16:01 -0500
Received: from source ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob51.postini.com
	([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:16:00 PST
Received: from inner-relay-3.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-3.adobe.com
	[192.150.20.198] (may be forged))
	by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
	l15JCevV025279; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fe1.corp.adobe.com (fe1.corp.adobe.com [10.8.192.70])
	by inner-relay-3.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id
	l15JFueE012094; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from namail3.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.192.66]) by fe1.corp.adobe.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:15:56 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [Tiff] Request help On OJPEG Compression In Libtiff
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:14:46 -0800
Message-ID: <3B96007137B4CE4E85114278E640DC33F7F7F1@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Tiff] Request help On OJPEG Compression In Libtiff
Thread-Index: AcdJWRbO4sb2lBwrS9aykJ2Ix/l2qAAAM8zt
References: <c6b4beb0702041928y480646ecgf81f67df93cce491@mail.gmail.com>
	<3B96007137B4CE4E85114278E640DC33F7F7EB@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
	<001d01c74959$043e57a0$777dfea9@AWareCore2Duo>
From: "Chris Cox" <ccox@adobe.com>
To: "Joris" <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>, "Steven Lim" <slch2020@gmail.com>,
        <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2007 19:15:56.0313 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[0FBAC090:01C7495A]
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by duke.maptools.org id
	l15JG195029512
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-UIDL: 000000000023ceae.000020a0
X-MSP-STORE: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:26:17 +0100
Status:   

That's because most (if not all) of Microsoft's implementations are based=
 on the same buggy library (it has other serious problems).
We have several bugs filed with Microsoft about those problems, and they =
are supposed to be fixing the code (was scheduled for Vista, but we haven=
't heard any response on the bugs and I haven't had time to verify in Vis=
ta).

And just because Microsoft propagates a bug doesn't mean that you should =
as well.

Don't write compression code 6 in TIFF.
You can read it, but you should never write it.

Chris





-----Original Message-----
From: Joris [mailto:joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be]
Sent: Mon 2/5/2007 11:08 AM
To: Chris Cox; Steven Lim; tiff@lists.maptools.org
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Request help On OJPEG Compression In Libtiff
=20
Chris,

Chris Cox wrote:
> 2) REALLY, don't do that  -- the old JPEG encoding is rarely
> supported (I'm sorely tempted to add a more severe note to Photoshop
> when encountering them to say that the file is buggy and the user
> needs to complain to the vendor that wrote it).

Hate to spoil your fantasy, but Windows XP and apparently Vista standard=20
previewing of images supports nothing but OJPEG. Same goes for Microsoft=20
Document Imaging stuff, or so I'm told. Another vendor that produces noth=
ing=20
but OJPEG, is Kofax, which apparently is no small fish either.

Apparently, many people have a need to be compatible with these products,=
 in=20
that they need to write files that these products can read fine. Actually=
,=20
my own customers wanted me to add OJPEG writing support to my own codec f=
or=20
exactly this reason, and after much consideration I had to give in to the=
se=20
needs, as I do understand them even if I very much dislike the situation =
and=20
the bad original OJPEG specification.

We seem to be trying to dry the kitchen floor, but we forgot to close the=
=20
water tap first. Perhaps a more severe note in Photoshop could get some=20
people's attention, but then again, I guess it's not very likely the issu=
e=20
didn't get their attention before. People have been screaming about this=20
issue for about two decades now.

Furthermore, the message in Photoshop might look a bit silly, given the f=
act=20
that Adobe has neglected to update the spec sofar. Any lock-in strategy f=
rom=20
an OJPEG vendor, can be backed up by a pointer to the current TIFF=20
specification. We might know there's supplements, but there's no reason w=
hy=20
anyone else should know, and the web is full of pointers directly to the=20
TIFF 6.0 spec PDF that bears no indication of the existence of supplement=
s=20
that override it.


Best regards,

Joris Van Damme
info@awaresystems.be
http://www.awaresystems.be/
Download your free TIFF tag viewer for windows here:
http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/astifftagviewer.html



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