Return-Path: owner-tiff@olympiakos.com
Return-Path: <owner-tiff@olympiakos.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by at1895.spb.edu (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id f3R9lCr1027948
	for <dron@localhost>; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:48:15 +0400
Received: from eudoramail.com [209.185.123.45]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.1)
	for dron@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:48:15 +0400 (MSD)
Received: from gate7.olympiakos.com ([207.176.88.85]) by shared1-mail.whowhere.com; Thu Apr 26 10:44:54 2001
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA22146;
	Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:22:56 -0400
Received: by gate7.olympiakos.com (bulk_mailer v1.9); Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:19:52 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21821
	for tiff-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:19:51 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: gate7.olympiakos.com: majordom set sender to owner-tiff@olympiakos.com using -f
Received: from pixar.pixar.com (pixar.pixar.com [138.72.10.20])
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21811
	for <tiff@olympiakos.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:19:49 -0400
Received: from moomin.pixar.com (moomin.pixar.com [138.72.27.160])
	by pixar.pixar.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14737;
	Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mccoy@localhost)
	by moomin.pixar.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA36426;
	Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel McCoy <mccoy@pixar.com>
Message-Id: <200104261719.KAA36426@moomin.pixar.com>
To: "Michael O'Rourke" <morourke@Adobe.COM>,
   Bernd Stahlbock
    <stahlbock@basysprint.de>
Subject: Re: 8K chunks for RowsPerStrip?
Cc: tiff@olympiakos.com
References: <IJEEKGEBDCHCGMJDLMHHAEMGCHAA.morourke@adobe.com>
Sender: owner-tiff@olympiakos.com
Status: RO
Content-Length: 952
Lines: 27


Michael O'Rourke schrieb:

> Does this standard still apply? I end up seeing _lots_ of TIFF files that
> write out one strip. Seems like this standard/suggestion (per Section 7 of
> the spec) was probably meant more for days when machines didn't have much
> ram and swap space.

>We have files over 2GB size, I really don't want them in one strip. Even the
>smallest with 100-200MB are really annoying (as single strip), because
>processing has to wait until the whole file is decoded to memory.

Clearly, single-strip images shouldn't be the standard.
I don't think anyone would suggest that.
Some recommended strip size is needed.

But 8k is miniscule.

We often write out scan lines of 2048 pixels, four channels
in single-precision floating point.  That's already 32k.
Internally, we ignore the the 8k and use either 32 scanlines
or 128k strips.

I think a strip size recommendation of between 32k and 512k
would be more reasonable.

Daniel McCoy

