View Full Version : TIFF files
02-09-2005, 11:16 AM
Don, are you able to add " TIFF, tif " files as a valid file type for attachments ?
- In my situation, (on a Mac) they represent a file size which is about 2 1/2 times smaller than a typical jpg and sport much better resolution when compressing colors.
- I'm finding that with the fairly laborious process I go through to save ( & then notate ) simulations of different tunings, I end up with images that look quite crummy when kept below the allowed image size. Saving as a tiff changes all that.
- This file type can always be removed if its not interpreted by the imaging plugins of standard browsers .
Thanks > Earl K
02-09-2005, 11:31 AM
We can try it. My fear is one that you identified, that not everyone's browser will be able to see them. My guess is that any image quality problems you are having has to do with the program you are using to convert to jpgs. There is nothing magical about the image compression of TIF's since that file fomat does not specify a compression algorithm. In fact JPG compression is one of the most common types used within the TIF format. JPG compression is infinitely variable, and I have never had a problem with producing very legible JPG graphs and text within the size limits.
02-09-2005, 11:58 AM
I have run into this issue myself. On the PC that I run Clio on I can save my plots as TIFF or JPEG but the JPEGs look like crap. The work around I have found is to save them TIFFs and send them to my Mac where I have Photoshop. In Photoshop I can save them as JPEGs with no visible loss of quality. As Don mentioned the problem arises with the software doing the conversion.
As for size, I find TIFFs to always be much heavier in data than JPEGs.
02-09-2005, 12:19 PM
So much for experiments - Don please remove the ability to load these attachments as TIFFs .
Thanks - but it was a no-go. My own browser (IE5 ) wouldn't even view them.
I spent the requisite time in Explorers' preferences area making sure the file-helpers were correctly directed to use the appropriate plugin for viewing this file type - still didn't work . I shouldn't have to reboot ( as far as I know ) to have these changes take hold . Anyways, a formula for confusion .
Widget, thanks for the heads-up and the look-see. My dilemma originates from the fact that my version of MacSpeakerz doesn't save to any other image format except its own file type. So I have to take a screen-shot of the window and then slog it from there. I have many programs that save to the jpeg format but they all are lousy at maintaining the color of the traces below 200k - even Illustrator . FWIW ; a 100K tiff file looked quite good .
02-09-2005, 12:27 PM
Just out of curiousity, could you add one of your TIF files to this thread? I'll disable that extension later. I want to experiment to see what JPG conversion settings are needed to maintain image quality. I do know that the most agressive settings can make text and graphics illegible. However at higher settings, I have images where my naked eye cannot detect any difference between a JPG conversion and an uncompressed TIF original.
02-09-2005, 12:31 PM
Here you go . I'll be curious to see who can actually see it .
02-09-2005, 12:41 PM
I was able to download and see it. It is more convenient to actually have the image appear in the post like this.
BTW: You'll notice the colors shifted. I didn't bother to take it through Photoshop, I used an Agfa product on my PC.
02-09-2005, 12:58 PM
- Yep, those are the same ( standard ) color shifts ( on the traces ) that I get when saving to jpg and keeping the file size to under 200 K.
- BBP6 seems to save all its' vibrant colors when saved to jpg ( or else Giskard is magic ) :D
02-09-2005, 01:01 PM
It depends on what I save the screen captures to...
Any version of Microsoft Word/Excel :no:
Any version of Microsoft Wordpad/Write :yes:
Paint Shop Pro :yes:
Adobe Photoshop :no:
Your TIF saved to disk, opened with Paint Shop Pro and saved as JPG with 15% compression.
Second one is with zero compression.
02-09-2005, 01:02 PM
This is the result through Photoshop.
02-09-2005, 01:03 PM
Giskard , Very Interesting :)
Widget , Yes that's better , that now matches the original without the colorshift . I guess PhotoShop has a better graphics engine than my standard Quicktime plugins .
02-09-2005, 01:06 PM
Are you saying the results of Photoshop on the PC aren't good? I used Photoshop on my Mac, and the Blue trace is back and the reds are much closer to the TIFF.
02-09-2005, 01:09 PM
Often they are not. Depends on the file.
The moment I open Earl's tiff in the default Kodak Viewer it looks like this:
The second one is in Adobe Photoshop:
If I open it in Paint Shop Pro it looks identical to what it looks like opened in Photoshop. However, Photoshop appears to save this particular file properly. I could monkey around with the Paint Shop Pro settings but I'm too lazy. :p
Looks like Photoshop wins opening and closing TIFFS from a MAC?
02-09-2005, 01:33 PM
Well,, I've had fun :D And you guys were a great help :applaud:
- it's just depressing to realize that need to buy PhotoShop :blink: :p
02-09-2005, 01:39 PM
TIFFs are uncompressed, or if compressed done so with a relatively inefficient lossless algorithm. JPEGs are compressed. JPEGs should always be smaller than TIFFs, if not, then the program making them is likely
20:1 compression from TIFF to JPEG is not uncommon.
TIFFs are appropriate for archiving and publications where it is not desirable to have progressive loss of quality when editing the image and resaving it.
JPEGs are the common image format for the web.
Photoshop CS has a "Save for Web" option with a more lossy, more efficient compression. TIFF is not even a web option as far as Adobe is concerned, the default is JPEG, and PNG, GIF and WBMP are allowed.
02-09-2005, 01:51 PM
:( I wasn´t able to see it directly, I´m running XP.
02-09-2005, 02:20 PM
I can't see the original TIFF in IE 6.0 running on Win98SE either. If I saved it and opened and viewed with a photo editor I probably could, though. Same deal, apparently....
02-09-2005, 02:36 PM
There may be other programs that work equally well. I have to have Photoshop for work so it isn't an option. I would expect Photoshop Lite would be all that you need. It is significantly less costly than the full package and sometimes comes bundled with scanners and such.
02-09-2005, 04:18 PM
Widget et al,
PhotoShop Lite - Thanks for that,, I had thought about that program quite a while ago.
Do pdf attachments typically display in your browser(s) or are you forced to download them to view them ?
02-09-2005, 04:47 PM
I primarily use Netscape 7 on a PC with XP and I have to download. It is a bit of a pain.
02-09-2005, 05:42 PM
Pdf's don't display directly in the forum window. Acrobat gotta be open, so I right click and "open in new window" unless I want to save it, in which case, I download. IE 6.0, Win98 SE.
Either way, somewhat of a PITA. It's a given that Acrobat will ultimately (maybe hours later) hang the computer. Too much crap open concurrently here, usually....
02-09-2005, 05:57 PM
Thanks Widget / Zilch
_______________________Just to continue displaying my ignorance about such things ;
- Does that mean there is no such thing as a browser plugin ( supported by Adobe ) that will display their pdf files within the popular browsers ?
- I have looked searched the typical sites from time to time but have never found it ( them ) / but that doesn't mean much.
- A great looking pdf file of the above graphic is only 40K / which is why I ask .
02-09-2005, 05:59 PM
Yes, install Adobe Reader and it will show pdf files in IE
02-09-2005, 06:06 PM
Yup, Thanks Giskard !
I do have an older version of that plugin ( Netscape ? ) that works on the Mac.
I see what Zilch is talking about ( I think ) the plugin actually calls Reader to boot up and handle the imaging responsibilty. Goofy .
Yea Zilch, If I keep Acrobat open on the Mac , it'll eventually "Hang" the computer.
Nice to know that Adobe treats both platforms with equal disdain . :applaud:
02-09-2005, 07:22 PM
Nice to know that Adobe treats both platforms with equal disdain . :applaud:Yeah, and every little tweak they do is a friggin' 2-hour download on dialup. LOL
02-09-2005, 07:26 PM
Adobe is easily one of the worst software companies to ever plague the planet.
02-09-2005, 07:29 PM
Aren't they battling for that title with Microsoft?
02-12-2005, 05:27 PM
since this image has few colours i would use a gif. jpgs are for really for multicolour photos.
gifs with an optimised colour pallet for that particular image/graphic will always be smaller than a tif and smaller than a jpg as well for the same crispness levels.
it is standard practice when designing websites to use gif's for all graphical elements (especially when you need transparency as well) and jpg's for the pretty photos.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.