Received: from mailgate006.isp.belgacom.be (mailgate006.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.5.212])
	by maildelivery016.isp.belgacom.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BC355805C
	for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Wed,  4 Jul 2007 19:45:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from r153.dmsolutions.ca (HELO duke.maptools.org) ([209.217.116.153])
  by in.mx.skynet.be with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2007 19:45:10 +0200
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 l64HOv9k022632;
	Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:25:09 -0400
Received: from dns2.namehog.net (dns2.namehog.net [213.52.234.203])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l64HOt4U022628
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:24:55 -0400
Received: from 81-86-57-99.dsl.pipex.com ([81.86.57.99] helo=EKAT)
	by dns2.namehog.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.66)
	(envelope-from <andy.cave@hamillroad.com>)
	id 1I68bG-0000j1-AD; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:25:10 +0100
Message-ID: <03c401c7be60$397bc8e0$da60fea9@EKAT>
From: "Andy Cave" <andy.cave@hamillroad.com>
To: <tiff@lists.maptools.org>, "Stephen Carlsen" <sc42business@mac.com>
References: <200707031603.l63G3SED026351@duke.maptools.org><9A01C3DF-894D-41BE-8266-D3F920A1FD92@owl.phy.queensu.ca><p06240819c2b04cdac5c6@[10.0.1.8]><4FC2B10C-9860-472A-BEFF-890CDAF05DDC@owl.phy.queensu.ca><Pine.SOC.4.60.0707041013280.922@blade.simplesystems.org><0DD3B73D-E4F3-4916-9BB5-8763388A0913@owl.phy.queensu.ca>
	<p0624081dc2b17e475b6a@[10.0.1.8]>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:24:46 +0100
Organization: Hamillroad Software
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-PopBeforeSMTPSenders: acave@hamillroad.com, news@hamillroad.com,
	sales@hamillroad.com, support@hamillroad.com
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dns2.namehog.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.maptools.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - hamillroad.com
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Andy Cave <andy.cave@hamillroad.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.00002524
X-MSP-STORE: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:45:10 +0200
Status:   

Hi Stephen,

Are you saying that LZW or Flate do not get 2:1? Have you tried either of 
these? What ratios do you get?

Do you have some example files for testing with?

I think if you can compress and write to disk faster than you can write, 
compression is always worth it. Sure storage space is getting larger and 
faster, but then CPUs are getting more and more cores, which can nicely do 
compression in parallel.

Andy.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Carlsen" <sc42business@mac.com>
To: <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:13 PM
Subject: [Tiff] 16-Bit-Per-Channel Lossless Compression


> It seems to me that none of the lossless compression schemes commonly used 
> in TIFF are very effective at compressing 16 bit or 32 bit data. And, with 
> technologies such as Camera Raw gaining in popularity rapidly, there's a 
> lot more 16 bit data out there.
>
> If we can come up with a simple approach that gives us on the order of 2:1 
> compression of 16 bit photographs, is this useful, or are storage space 
> and bandwidth now so inexpensive that we don't care any more?
> _______________________________________________
> Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
> http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/ 


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