Computer Graphics with Photoshop - TIFF vs. JPEG - which do you recommend for scanned photos?

Author

TIFF vs. JPEG - which do you recommend for scanned photos?

Nikko

2004-12-26, 7:14 pm

I'm about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred family
photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference).
I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or
TIFF. I don't know if the fact that I'm scanning them would make the answer
different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.

I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there's some
compression going on with the latter. I'm sure there's some sort of
trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I'm
unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I
supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I'm just scanning
them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals.
Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I'd
also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project.
Mostly wondering if there's anything you found out later that you wish you
had known when you started process.

Thanks again for any help you can provide.

Peadge

2004-12-26, 7:14 pm

"Nikko" <nothanks@yomomma.com> wrote in message
news:rdidnUAs8d24vFLcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> I'm about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred
family
> photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference).
> I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or
> TIFF. I don't know if the fact that I'm scanning them would make the
answer
> different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.
>
> I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there's some
> compression going on with the latter. I'm sure there's some sort of
> trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I'm
> unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I
> supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I'm just
scanning
> them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals.
> Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I'd
> also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project.
> Mostly wondering if there's anything you found out later that you wish you
> had known when you started process.
>
> Thanks again for any help you can provide.
>
>
You're correct. There is a trade off in saving a file as a TIFF or JPEG.
The tradeoff is the usual one of file size versus quality.

TIFFs are more flexible, offering a wider range of features, options and
application than JPEGs. TIFFs support RGB, CMYK, Lab, indexed-color, and
grayscale images with alpha channels and Bitmap-mode images without alpha
channels. TIFFs are usually considered "lossless" and can be saved with no
compression, with LZW and ZIP compression (both lossless) or JPEG
compression (lossy). Either of the first two compression methods may
warrant your further consideration.

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding
information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture
that weren't there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale
color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as
JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Another lossless format you may want to consider is PNG, should this option
be available. PNG files are usually much smaller than TIFF files and larger
than JPGs. PNG supports 24-bit images and produces background transparency
without the jagged edges associated with GIFs. Note too that not all Web
browsers support PNGs.

PNG format does not support CMYK, but does support RGB, indexed-color,
grayscale, and Bitmap-mode images without alpha channels. PNG preserves
transparency in grayscale and RGB images, although again, not all Web
browsers support PNG transparencies. If you're not overly concerned with the
Web or CMYK printing, PNG may be the best choice when comparing file size
and quality. Of course, PNGs can later be saved in other formats that do
support CMYK color.

I credit confirmation from Photoshop Help and www.wikipedia.com with much of
this information

...not wishing to plagiarize!

Peadge :-)

Xalinai

2004-12-26, 7:14 pm

Nikko wrote:

> I'm about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred
> family photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a
> difference). I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to
> save them in, JPEG or TIFF. I don't know if the fact that I'm
> scanning them would make the answer different than if I was taking
> the photos myself with a digital camera.

It is in so far that when scanning you have the full freedom to decide
for the best format for your needs.

> I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there's
> some compression going on with the latter. I'm sure there's some
> sort of trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG
> files? I'm unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos
> much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this
> point, I'm just scanning them so my family has copies in case
> something happens to the originals. Any ideas as to the pros/cons of
> TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I'd also welcome pointers from
> anyone who has attempted a similar project. Mostly wondering if
> there's anything you found out later that you wish you had known when
> you started process.

Digital images do age in a different way than their analog
counterparts: If you decide for the wrong format and do not care to
migrate media every so many years you may have he bits and bytes but be
unable to view them.

Your choice of TIF and JPG is already a good one in so far as both are
published standards that do not deped on a certain proprietary software.

Your decision for either of them should consider the number of pixels
of your scans and the size you want to have when you some time in the
future decide to have the images printed.

For small images - that is images in the size of a 4x6 at 300dpi or
1200x1800 pixels - TIF is undoubtedly the best format as it is lossless
and does not introduce image errors even when compressed.

For larger images in the range beyond 4000x6000 pixels, JPEG using a
carefully adjusted compression will not do too much damage compared to
the size of the image and the benefit of the smaller file size.

For anything in between you should compare the result of the different
formats, whether the file size is acceptable or the compression loss
didn't do too much damage.

Always keep in mind that JPG compression works by losing data that you
supposedly will not see - but it does lose data that was in your
original scan.

Michael

jjs

2004-12-26, 7:14 pm

You can have compressed TIFF files, too. TIFF is the way to go. JPEG is a
waste of time for storage purposes. Disc space is cheap.

Consider your final output requisites. For example, if you have an 8x10"
image to scan, then scanning to get an image 2880 x 3600 pixels will assure
that you get good prints of the same size.

Michael

2004-12-26, 11:14 pm

Hello,
Here are my 2 cents worth.
I work in the graphics industry and manage a graphics department.

For professional uses TIF is your best format. Disk space is not as
expensive to come by as it used to be and the file format is more
friendly to professional output devices. I use TIF with LZW compression
for most of the graphics we use for printing and prepress.
On the other hand our royalty free image catalogs are in JPEG format
because that is how they were provided so we keep the original that way
with Photoshop files for the edited versions. Photoshop does compress
it's images with a lossless format.
LZW compression for TIF images is lossless and does not damage the image
in any way. Though since we are using CMYK instead of RGB our image size
is large with the extra color space.

For my own family photo archive I am using JPEG format in RGB color with
the quality set to high.

JPEG compression is Lossy which means it damages the image to gain the
great compression. Low quality doing the worst damage and high doing the
least. For black and white photos grayscale will be a smaller file
unless you are going for the sepia color that the original image has. I
am doing this with an old retouched photo of my grand parents.

JPEG is a much more universal file for your archive. The RGB color space
allows more colors and the photographic output formats for photo prints
accept JPG files. It is platform independent.

A great many stock photo houses have invested lots of time and money in
their own libraries in this format. Expect it to be around for a little
while. 20 years from now our Quantum computers should be able to read
the ancient JPEG format.

Keep your achive backed up. Don't trust the shelf life of CDs. Don't
worry in a couple of years you can download your multi-gig library to
your phone/gaming or whatever device comes out next. Keep the library
moving and in several places. A spare firewire or USB 2 drive is an
excellent option.

Michael H

Go to these sites for some info on graphic formats:
http://www.dansdata.com/graphics.htm
http://www.compukiss.com/sandyclass.../article934.htm
http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Form...age-Formats.htm

Nikko wrote:

>I'm about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred family
>photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference).
>I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or
>TIFF. I don't know if the fact that I'm scanning them would make the answer
>different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.
>
>I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there's some
>compression going on with the latter. I'm sure there's some sort of
>trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I'm
>unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I
>supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I'm just scanning
>them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals.
>Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I'd
>also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project.
>Mostly wondering if there's anything you found out later that you wish you
>had known when you started process.
>
>Thanks again for any help you can provide.
>
>
>
>

formerly known as 'cat arranger'

2004-12-26, 11:14 pm

"Nikko" <nothanks@yomomma.com> wrote in message
news:rdidnUAs8d24vFLcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
: I'm about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred
family
: photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference).
: I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or
: TIFF. I don't know if the fact that I'm scanning them would make the
answer
: different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.
:
: I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there's some
: compression going on with the latter. I'm sure there's some sort of
: trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I'm
: unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I
: supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I'm just
scanning
: them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals.
: Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I'd
: also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project.
: Mostly wondering if there's anything you found out later that you wish you
: had known when you started process.
:
: Thanks again for any help you can provide.

You've answered your own question with the trade-off
question. All of your assumptions are correct. You have
to take into consideration the number of scans and your
disk space. I have almost a terabyte but still scan at
high quality jpegs though. You can always reduce resolution
but not increase it. Good luck. : -)

Gadgets

2004-12-27, 4:14 am

Great reply from Michael, but something to add might be that if you can scan
in 16 bit colour (presuming you want to keep any yellowing/sepia and the
detail it represents), then you won't be able to save to jpg until it's
downconverted to 8 bit. For archiving as much as possible, and LZW
compressed tiff would be the way to go.

For ease of use and almost as good, then max quality jpg...

Perhaps store raw 16 bit scans as tif, and have jpgs (maybe screen res) for
previewing?

Cheers, Jason
Photo folio:
http://gadgetaus.com/photos

Tacit

2004-12-27, 7:14 pm

>I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or
>TIFF. I don't know if the fact that I'm scanning them would make the answer
>different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.

JPEG: "lossy" compression. This means the quality of the picture is
deliberately degraded to make the file smaller on disk. This quality
degredation is permanent and irreversible; nothing can get the lost quality
back. It is also cumulative; if you open a JPEG and re-save it, you lose more
quality, and the image is degraded further.

TIFF: non-lossy. You can open and save a million times and the millionth time
it will still be identical to the original. the image is not degraded.

JPEG is useful for situations where file size on disk is important and
qualityof the image is not important--for example, on the Web. TIFF is useful
for archiving and for situations where the quality of the picture is important.

I would never even consider archiving images in JPEG format.

--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Donald Link

2004-12-27, 11:14 pm

I am scanning a least a thousand pictures of my grandkids that were
taken at various ages and cameras. I have found that scanning in TIFF
is the most useful format to use since I am running them through
Photoshop and using different filters and image adjustsment as needed.
I also have found that you can scan in (using Vuescan which is a must
if you want to fine tune image scans) that you can scan a photo in
anywhere from a 3 or 4 megs up to 80 megs, depending on resolutions
and whether you are scanning to print or computer viewing. I am not
concerned about the extra sizes since I am going to be burning them to
DVD by running them thru Pinnacle Studio and care not if I have to use
a large amount of DVDs. The pictures will more precious than gold
when they are able to show them to their kids and hopefully grandkids.

On 27 Dec 2004 18:08:15 GMT, tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:

>
>JPEG: "lossy" compression. This means the quality of the picture is
>deliberately degraded to make the file smaller on disk. This quality
>degredation is permanent and irreversible; nothing can get the lost quality
>back. It is also cumulative; if you open a JPEG and re-save it, you lose more
>quality, and the image is degraded further.
>
>TIFF: non-lossy. You can open and save a million times and the millionth time
>it will still be identical to the original. the image is not degraded.
>
>JPEG is useful for situations where file size on disk is important and
>qualityof the image is not important--for example, on the Web. TIFF is useful
>for archiving and for situations where the quality of the picture is important.
>
>I would never even consider archiving images in JPEG format.

John McWilliams

2004-12-27, 11:14 pm

Tacit wrote:

>
>
> JPEG: "lossy" compression. This means the quality of the picture is
> deliberately degraded to make the file smaller on disk. This quality
> degredation is permanent and irreversible; nothing can get the lost quality
> back. It is also cumulative; if you open a JPEG and re-save it, you lose more
> quality, and the image is degraded further.
>
> TIFF: non-lossy. You can open and save a million times and the millionth time
> it will still be identical to the original. the image is not degraded.
>
> JPEG is useful for situations where file size on disk is important and
> qualityof the image is not important--for example, on the Web. TIFF is useful
> for archiving and for situations where the quality of the picture is important.
>
> I would never even consider archiving images in JPEG format.

I would, and I do when I shoot in jpeg, but then I am not using a
scanner. For camera images that "arrive" in jpeg, the first cut is the
best. The .psd or TIFF file you save from the original jpeg will be no
better than those files, and will be several magnitudes smaller.

--
John McWilliams

David Magda

2004-12-27, 11:14 pm

"Peadge" <oneravenlunatic@comcast.net> writes:

> JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective
> discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces
> artifacts into the picture that weren't there originally. JPEG
> format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not
> support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an
> image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn't the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these 'defficiencies'?
Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an
alternative? I'm not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have
more capabilities than the 'original' JPEG standard I would think.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

John McWilliams

2004-12-27, 11:14 pm

John McWilliams wrote:

> Tacit wrote:
>
>
>
> I would, and I do when I shoot in jpeg, but then I am not using a
> scanner. For camera images that "arrive" in jpeg, the first cut is the
> best. The .psd or TIFF file you save from the original jpeg will be no
> better than those files, and will be several magnitudes smaller.
>
Duh on me. The PS or TIFF files will be several time larger than the
jpeg it started from, but contain no better info.

--
John McWiliams

The Gadget Shop

2004-12-28, 4:14 am

> Doesn't the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these 'defficiencies'?

It's a great format, but not widely supported... yet.

Cheers, Jason
Photo folio:
http://gadgetaus.com/photos

ggull

2004-12-28, 4:14 am

"Nikko" <nothanks@yomomma.com> wrote .
> I'm about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred
family
> photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference).
> I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or
> TIFF. <snip> I'm
> unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I
> supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I'm just
scanning
> them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals.

First off, you might want to google on comp.periphs.scanners for the last
score times or so variations of this question have been posed :-), and maybe
post there. There are many considerations beyond just what format to use
for storing the files, such as the resolution (dpi), whether to scan black
and white prints as color or not, 8 or 16 bits per channel, proper
dusting/cleaning of scanner (and maybe photos).

(As to scanning b&w prints, in particular, my own purely subjective
experience has been that color scans somehow look better .. maybe the three
channels allow for some finer gradation in the luminance? or is it just that
the inevitable slight off-white tinge is reproduced?)

If you can possibly spare the storage, I'd highly recommend using TIFF or
some other 100% non-lossy file format. If you find yourself depending on
JPEGs and later want to do some restoration or trying to drag out details in
the images,
BUT ... if it's a choice between high quality (i.e. low compression) JPEG at
the resolution appropriate to your source (say 300 dpi) and TIFF at a lower
resolution (say 150 dpi), it's not so obvious. I can only say, experiment.
And do the arithmetic or scan a few samples and compare file sizes.

It's true, as several have pointed out, that repeatedly saving an image as
JPEG, then reading it into a photo editor to, say, crop it and rewriting it
as JPEG ... then reading JPEG#2 and, say, adjusting the color balance and
then writing JPEG#3 ... and so forth ... will degrade the image with each
step. BUT ... that's stupid workflow. This can be much obviated by
starting any adjustment/editing with the original scanned JPEG, storing any
intermediate steps if needed in TIFF (PSD, etc.).

A lot depends on the size and quality of the photos. Are we talking about
8x10 studio portraits or out of focus, business card sized snapshots? (You
may actually want the best quality files for the crappiest photos, if you
later want to try to improve them.)

A mixed approach might be your best solution ... say scan everything as
TIFF, then use photoshop to create a set of JPEGs for distributing to family
on CD. Or do the bulk at lower resolution or in JPEG, but the higher
quality prints or those more critical (the only picture of aunt Sadie, with
washed out highlights but maybe restorable), in lossless high resolution.

Xalinai

2004-12-28, 4:14 am

David Magda wrote:

> "Peadge" <oneravenlunatic@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
> Doesn't the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these 'defficiencies'?
> Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an
> alternative? I'm not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have
> more capabilities than the 'original' JPEG standard I would think.

It still relies upon dropping information for efficient compression.

It has less visible artifacts, more like a heavy blur instead.

It supports a lossless (but ineffective) compression.

It isn't supported (natively) by any of the major web browsers.

Michael

Clyde

2004-12-28, 7:14 pm

David Magda wrote:
> "Peadge" <oneravenlunatic@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
> Doesn't the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these 'defficiencies'?
> Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an
> alternative? I'm not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have
> more capabilities than the 'original' JPEG standard I would think.
>

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000
format with lossless compression. It's the smallest I can make a
lossless file.

Yeah, it's not widely used, but my Photoshop CS reads it. It likely will
continue to read it for decades in the future. Besides, I'm not likely
to even need it either.

Clyde

Clyde

2004-12-28, 7:14 pm

Xalinai wrote:
> David Magda wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It still relies upon dropping information for efficient compression.
>
> It has less visible artifacts, more like a heavy blur instead.
>
> It supports a lossless (but ineffective) compression.
>
> It isn't supported (natively) by any of the major web browsers.
>
> Michael

What makes the lossless compression of JPEG2000 "ineffective"? If it's
truly lossless (it certainly appears to be) and it makes the smallest
files (it does from my CS) what is "ineffective" about it? That we seem
to fit the definition of "effective" pretty well.

The lossless option in it certainly doesn't drop information. It also
doesn't have any artifacts or blur. Well, other than what you left in
your picture.

Since I'm archiving my files and don't care about viewing them on Web
browsers, it doesn't matter. Besides, TIFF isn't supported by Web
browsers either.

Clyde

formerly known as 'cat arranger'

2004-12-28, 7:14 pm

"Clyde" <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
news:18gAd.817165$8_6.292603@attbi_s04...
: Xalinai wrote:
: > David Magda wrote:
: >
: >
: >>"Peadge" <oneravenlunatic@comcast.net> writes:
: >>
: >>
: >>>JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective
: >>>discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces
: >>>artifacts into the picture that weren't there originally. JPEG
: >>>format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not
: >>>support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an
: >>>image editing program will further deteriorate the image.
: >>
: >>Doesn't the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these 'defficiencies'?
: >>Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an
: >>alternative? I'm not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have
: >>more capabilities than the 'original' JPEG standard I would think.
: >
: >
: > It still relies upon dropping information for efficient compression.
: >
: > It has less visible artifacts, more like a heavy blur instead.
: >
: > It supports a lossless (but ineffective) compression.
: >
: > It isn't supported (natively) by any of the major web browsers.
: >
: > Michael
:
: What makes the lossless compression of JPEG2000 "ineffective"? If it's
: truly lossless (it certainly appears to be) and it makes the smallest
: files (it does from my CS) what is "ineffective" about it? That we seem
: to fit the definition of "effective" pretty well.
:
: The lossless option in it certainly doesn't drop information. It also
: doesn't have any artifacts or blur. Well, other than what you left in
: your picture.
:
: Since I'm archiving my files and don't care about viewing them on Web
: browsers, it doesn't matter. Besides, TIFF isn't supported by Web
: browsers either.
:
: Clyde

I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe. The idea of a blurring
compression doesn't seem to be right because blurry pics take up
more room than sharp ones. I really don't see why anyone wouldn't
be happy with the high quality jpeg compression unless they are doing
magazine work or something similar.

Sometimes production values seem to be more important than content
to some.

formerly known as 'cat arranger'

2004-12-28, 7:14 pm

"ggull" <ggullSPAM@NOTrcn.com> wrote in message
news:2OKdnb4Vv9oif03cRVn-jw@rcn.net...
: "Nikko" <nothanks@yomomma.com> wrote .
: > I'm about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred
: family
: > photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a
difference).
: > I'm trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG
or
: > TIFF. <snip> I'm
: > unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I
: > supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I'm just
: scanning
: > them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals.
:
: First off, you might want to google on comp.periphs.scanners for the last
: score times or so variations of this question have been posed :-), and
maybe
: post there. There are many considerations beyond just what format to use
: for storing the files, such as the resolution (dpi), whether to scan black
: and white prints as color or not, 8 or 16 bits per channel, proper
: dusting/cleaning of scanner (and maybe photos).
:
: (As to scanning b&w prints, in particular, my own purely subjective
: experience has been that color scans somehow look better .. maybe the
three
: channels allow for some finer gradation in the luminance? or is it just
that
: the inevitable slight off-white tinge is reproduced?)
:
: If you can possibly spare the storage, I'd highly recommend using TIFF or
: some other 100% non-lossy file format. If you find yourself depending on
: JPEGs and later want to do some restoration or trying to drag out details
in
: the images,
: BUT ... if it's a choice between high quality (i.e. low compression) JPEG
at
: the resolution appropriate to your source (say 300 dpi) and TIFF at a
lower
: resolution (say 150 dpi), it's not so obvious. I can only say,
experiment.
: And do the arithmetic or scan a few samples and compare file sizes.
:
: It's true, as several have pointed out, that repeatedly saving an image as
: JPEG, then reading it into a photo editor to, say, crop it and rewriting
it
: as JPEG ... then reading JPEG#2 and, say, adjusting the color balance and
: then writing JPEG#3 ... and so forth ... will degrade the image with each
: step. BUT ... that's stupid workflow. This can be much obviated by
: starting any adjustment/editing with the original scanned JPEG, storing
any
: intermediate steps if needed in TIFF (PSD, etc.).
:
: A lot depends on the size and quality of the photos. Are we talking about
: 8x10 studio portraits or out of focus, business card sized snapshots?
(You
: may actually want the best quality files for the crappiest photos, if you
: later want to try to improve them.)
:
: A mixed approach might be your best solution ... say scan everything as
: TIFF, then use photoshop to create a set of JPEGs for distributing to
family
: on CD. Or do the bulk at lower resolution or in JPEG, but the higher
: quality prints or those more critical (the only picture of aunt Sadie,
with
: washed out highlights but maybe restorable), in lossless high resolution.
:
:

Good advice, it seems to me. With the plummeting costs of disk drives
($100 for 250G Maxtor at Fry's last weekend) you can't go wrong anyway and
you can
buy a good DVD burner, real good Lite-on, for $100 8X.

jjs

2004-12-28, 7:14 pm

"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:MBiAd.9958$CH5.6140@fed1read01...

> I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe.

The Jpeg2000 standard specifies a lossless method. In addition it has a lot
of ambitious add-in ideas such as a guaranteed color space for pre-press, 3D
standards, security methods.

Nicholas Sherlock

2004-12-28, 7:14 pm

formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
> I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe.

Yes, it has an entirely lossless mode.

> The idea of a blurring
> compression doesn't seem to be right because blurry pics take up
> more room than sharp ones.

What you see when you see a "Blurred" picture from Jpeg2000 is simply
the low frequency components of the image.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

formerly known as 'cat arranger'

2004-12-29, 7:14 am

"jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote in message
news:10t3hjrf6d90q93@news.supernews.com...
: "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote
: in message news:MBiAd.9958$CH5.6140@fed1read01...
:
: > I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe.
:
: The Jpeg2000 standard specifies a lossless method. In addition it has a
lot
: of ambitious add-in ideas such as a guaranteed color space for pre-press,
3D
: standards, security methods.

When you say color space for pre-press, does that mean that the colors are
substituted into the range of the printers equipment? What are 3D standards?
I stand corrected about the lossy/lossless issue.

David Magda

2004-12-29, 7:14 pm

Clyde <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> writes:

> I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000
> format with lossless compression. It's the smallest I can make a
> lossless file.

Is there a particular brand or manufacturer for these "'gold' CDs"? I
know some people who are running low on the old Kodak gold-on-gold
ones and would be interested in what's available.

Thanks for any info.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

RSD99

2004-12-29, 11:14 pm

Yes:
http://www.mitsuigold.com/
http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column53/

They are available from several sources "on line" ... but *none* of my
local suppliers carry any kind of Archival CD-R disks.

"David Magda" <dmagda+trace040726@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote in message
news:867jn093rk.fsf@number6.magda.ca...
> Clyde <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> writes:
>
>
> Is there a particular brand or manufacturer for these "'gold' CDs"? I
> know some people who are running low on the old Kodak gold-on-gold
> ones and would be interested in what's available.
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> --
> David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
> Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
> the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
> under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

ggull

2004-12-30, 4:14 am

"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
....
>
> Good advice, it seems to me.
Thanks. I've been toying with this issue (on a larger scale, several massive
photo albums and a few boxes of prints, slides, etc.) for a couple of years.
> With the plummeting costs of disk drives
> ($100 for 250G Maxtor at Fry's last weekend) you can't go wrong anyway and
> you can
> buy a good DVD burner, real good Lite-on, for $100 8X.
Yeah, I got a 250G SATA at compusa a couple of weeks ago for $125 :-).
But for the OP's purposes, both because he might want something to store
off-computer, even off-site, and because he sounds maybe not too technically
sophisticated, a plug'n'play external drive might be better, though more
expensive.

The idea of burning to DVD is good and makes for a smaller stack of discs.
(or in a year or two when dual layer blanks get realistically priced, even
better) But I wonder what the archival quality relative to good CDRs is?