TIFF-files

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:12:56 +0200, "m…bos" wrote:

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

Its because there is no compression with TIFF. The ones I manipulate are above 25mb, where as the equivilent jpg is often less than 300kb. Unfortunately if you have a directory with 300 files….that is a lot of work the hdd has to do to open/edit/save etc.

If you use say 6x 10000k raptors drives in raid0 it is much more bearable 🙂

There is too much blood in my alcohol system

"m…bos" wrote:

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

I don’t do TIFF but I don’t see how it’s possible to expect any program or system to give the exact same speed to a much larger size. May be enough memory to speed thing up a little?

rmd wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:12:56 +0200, "m…bos" wrote:

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

Its because there is no compression with TIFF.

Not necessarily true. I usually compress with LZW and jpeg and zip compression are also options when you save a tiff.

The ones I manipulate

are above 25mb, where as the equivilent jpg is often less than 300kb. Unfortunately if you have a directory with 300 files….that is a lot of work the hdd has to do to open/edit/save etc.

If you use say 6x 10000k raptors drives in raid0 it is much more bearable 🙂

There is too much blood in my alcohol system

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:12:56 +0200, "m…bos" wrote:

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

Max out the memory that your computer supports. Get a second disc drive to use as a swap disc – not a single drive with 2 partitions.

"m…bos" wrote in message

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method
to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

the tiff are most likely larger files sizes
you need more memory and scratch space as advised

OT question:
Does the compression in TIFF degrade the same way as the JPG?

I have never tried compressing my TIFF’s as I was not sure about it the Mac-Win option does not seem to matter either, both open just fine on either box?

KatWoman wrote:

"m…bos" wrote in message

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method
to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

the tiff are most likely larger files sizes
you need more memory and scratch space as advised

OT question:
Does the compression in TIFF degrade the same way as the JPG?
I have never tried compressing my TIFF’s as I was not sure about it the Mac-Win option does not seem to matter either, both open just fine on either box?

Depends. LZW is lossless, but jpg is not.

Mac or Win Byte order doesn’t matter at all unless you are using certain old devices or software.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

edjh wrote:

<snip>

Its because there is no compression with TIFF.

Not necessarily true. I usually compress with LZW and jpeg and zip compression are also options when you save a tiff.

I think you are looking at wrong or different type of compression (?)

edjh wrote:

<snip>

Depends. LZW is lossless, but jpg is not.

I have been reading this for over decade (2 decades ?) and can you tell me the difference between old JPG and current JPG? or may be the difference between older and newer program handles JPG?

Mac or Win Byte order doesn’t matter at all unless you are using certain old devices or software.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:30:27 -0500, Joe wrote:

edjh wrote:

<snip>

Depends. LZW is lossless, but jpg is not.

I have been reading this for over decade (2 decades ?) and can you tell me the difference between old JPG and current JPG? or may be the difference between older and newer program handles JPG?

Mac or Win Byte order doesn’t matter at all unless you are using certain old devices or software.

Just a quick google on jpeg turned up these links. I did not have time this morning to read them but you can bet I will later on!

http://www.jpeg.org/apps/cinema.html Jpeg and Digital Cameras

http://www.jpeg.org/ The home page

Joe wrote:

edjh wrote:

<snip>

Its because there is no compression with TIFF.

Not necessarily true. I usually compress with LZW and jpeg and zip compression are also options when you save a tiff.

I think you are looking at wrong or different type of compression (?)

Eh? What does that mean?

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

"edjh" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

"m…bos" wrote in message

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are
lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method
to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

the tiff are most likely larger files sizes
you need more memory and scratch space as advised

OT question:
Does the compression in TIFF degrade the same way as the JPG?
I have never tried compressing my TIFF’s as I was not sure about it the Mac-Win option does not seem to matter either, both open just fine on either box?

Depends. LZW is lossless, but jpg is not.

Mac or Win Byte order doesn’t matter at all unless you are using certain old devices or software.

OK so for sending over internet I can compress my TIFF’s for smaller files with no compromise.
And I would have the option to leave some layers unflattened, like text and adjustment
I will try it next time.
seems like a better option than jpg on 12 quality
thanks edjh

The file will still be much larger when compared to jpeg, especially if you are leaving the document layers intact. But LZW compression will drop the file size a bit.

In article <nXwOh.28192$>,
"KatWoman" wrote:

OK so for sending over internet I can compress my TIFF’s for smaller files with no compromise.
And I would have the option to leave some layers unflattened, like text and adjustment
I will try it next time.
seems like a better option than jpg on 12 quality
thanks edjh

edjh wrote:

Joe wrote:

edjh wrote:

<snip>

Its because there is no compression with TIFF.

Not necessarily true. I usually compress with LZW and jpeg and zip compression are also options when you save a tiff.

I think you are looking at wrong or different type of compression (?)

Eh? What does that mean?

It means the thing most people call loseless, the quality, the size difference, the changing after each save etc..

IOW, many people mean JPEG loses some quality because of the format compression *not* compression option. Or, there will be some changing even you set the compression = highest. BTW, now Photoshop calls Quality but years ago it’s called Compression (Level) and I think it was up to 100% (?)

wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:30:27 -0500, Joe wrote:

edjh wrote:

<snip>

Depends. LZW is lossless, but jpg is not.

I have been reading this for over decade (2 decades ?) and can you tell me the difference between old JPG and current JPG? or may be the difference between older and newer program handles JPG?

Mac or Win Byte order doesn’t matter at all unless you are using certain old devices or software.

Just a quick google on jpeg turned up these links. I did not have time this morning to read them but you can bet I will later on!
http://www.jpeg.org/apps/cinema.html Jpeg and Digital Cameras
http://www.jpeg.org/ The home page

I have been reading plenty of JPEG and now RAW for ages. Some swear RAW is God when they don’t even know much about RAW and JPEG, or too many crazy minds out there <bg>

extrarice wrote:

The file will still be much larger when compared to jpeg, especially if you are leaving the document layers intact. But LZW compression will drop the file size a bit.

Right, usually. Did some testing at work a couple years back and found that for some reason some tiffs with LZW compression were actually a bit larger than without. No idea why. Most were smaller.

In article <nXwOh.28192$>,
"KatWoman" wrote:

OK so for sending over internet I can compress my TIFF’s for smaller files with no compromise.
And I would have the option to leave some layers unflattened, like text and adjustment
I will try it next time.
seems like a better option than jpg on 12 quality
thanks edjh

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

On Mar 28, 8:30 pm, edjh wrote:
[snip]

Right, usually. Did some testing at work a couple years back and found that for some reason some tiffs with LZW compression were actually a bit larger than without. No idea why. Most were smaller.

[snip]

True. Here are some results from a recent test. Look at the 16-bit sizes:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/hdp/#extra

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

In article <460ac256$0$30091$>,
edjh wrote:

Right, usually. Did some testing at work a couple years back and found that for some reason some tiffs with LZW compression were actually a bit larger than without. No idea why. Most were smaller.

16-bit images will generally be larger with LZW compression. There is sufficient noise in the least significant bits of a typical 16-bit image that most compression techniques won’t work very well.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article <NUcOh.18588$>,
"KatWoman" wrote:

I have never tried compressing my TIFF’s as I was not sure about it the Mac-Win option does not seem to matter either, both open just fine on either box?

The "Mac/Windows" option is misleadingly named. It should be named "Intel-type CPU" and "all other CPUs"…and even that does not really matter.

The "Mac/Windows" option sets the byte order for the file. Intel processors read data in what is called "little-endian" format; for every group of bytes, the least significant byte comes first, then the most significant byte.

By way of analogy, think about what would happen if you took years and swapped each pair of numbers, so that you would say "9214" instead of 1492." Or if you wrote a check for a thousand dollars by writing "$0010" instead of "$1000."

That is the way Intel processors read data, because for various engineering reasons it made designing the first 16-bit processors to be backward compatible with the ancient 8=bit 8080 processor easier.

A picture to a computer is nothing but a long string of numbers. When you choose "Windows" in your TIFF dialog, the computer swaps around every pair of numbers with the pair of numbers next to it when it saves. So if your picture is represented by the numbers

1056720132456699

then choosing "Windows" in the TIFF dialog will cause your computer to write

5610017245329966

to the disk.

Any reasonably intelligent program should be able to read a TIFF written either way.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

m…bos wrote:

I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?

It’s probably slowing down due to the number of images you have open, rather than the fact that they’re TIFFs. Note also that TIFFs can contain 16-bit color, which means they take up at least twice as much memory.

The method to make it work more quickly is to either a) Not open lots of memory-hungry images, or b) add RAM, and get a bigger swap disk, or c) all of the above. 🙂