Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Archiving documents JPG vs TIF

Expand Messages
  • IowaGob@juno.com
    After learning the disadvantages of using JPG to archive documents I decided to experiment a bit since I have been using JPG to archive black/white documents
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      After learning the disadvantages of using JPG
      to archive documents I decided to experiment a bit
      since I have been using JPG to archive black/white
      documents for years and thought I was getting good
      quality and saving space.

      Today I scanned a document, actually yellow
      paper with black printing, using the following settings:

      200 dpi
      greyscale
      sized 67%

      After scanning I adjusted the gamma up a
      bit and the contrast and brightness up a bit until
      the grey of the background was white and the
      printing was sharp and black then I saved the file
      in JPG (75% progressive compression) and in TIF
      formats.

      The JPG file is 299 kb, the TIF file is 1.6 mb.

      When I call them back into Photo Impact and
      display them side by side I can see a tiny bit of
      difference. The JPG file is very slightly less crisp
      but both are perfectly readable. The printouts
      seem to be identical.

      I can attach the two files to an email if
      anyone would like to look at them.

      How can I do better than the JPG version
      of this document, either size or quality wise? I'd
      be interested to know.

      Jerry Hale
      Deltona, FL




      ________________________________________________________________
      GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
      Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
      Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
      http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
    • Tony R. Wickersham
      You could try compressing the TIF by choosing a compressed TIF option, if your image software supports it -- usually during the Save File operation. Also,
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 14, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        You could try compressing the TIF by choosing a "compressed TIF" option,
        if your image software supports it -- usually during the Save File
        operation. Also, if you don't mind the results, change from greyscale
        (8 bit) to black/white (1 bit). Here is where the threshold between
        white and black will be important. You'll see what I mean the first
        time you try it.

        Tony W
        Computer Programmer
        University of Wyoming
        twick at uwyo dot edu

        -----Original Message-----
        From: IowaGob@... [mailto:IowaGob@...]
        Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:18 AM
        To: genphoto@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [genphoto] Archiving documents JPG vs TIF



        After learning the disadvantages of using JPG
        to archive documents I decided to experiment a bit
        since I have been using JPG to archive black/white
        documents for years and thought I was getting good
        quality and saving space.

        Today I scanned a document, actually yellow
        paper with black printing, using the following settings:

        200 dpi
        greyscale
        sized 67%

        After scanning I adjusted the gamma up a
        bit and the contrast and brightness up a bit until
        the grey of the background was white and the
        printing was sharp and black then I saved the file
        in JPG (75% progressive compression) and in TIF
        formats.

        The JPG file is 299 kb, the TIF file is 1.6 mb.

        When I call them back into Photo Impact and
        display them side by side I can see a tiny bit of
        difference. The JPG file is very slightly less crisp
        but both are perfectly readable. The printouts
        seem to be identical.

        I can attach the two files to an email if
        anyone would like to look at them.

        How can I do better than the JPG version
        of this document, either size or quality wise? I'd
        be interested to know.

        Jerry Hale
        Deltona, FL




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jeffrey Owens
        ... I am an ex-sailor myself, and I don t know if your Gob refers to same, but let me say it seems like it might take a whack in the face from the main brace
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 14, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          IowaGob@... wrote:

          > After learning the disadvantages of using JPG
          > to archive documents I decided to experiment a bit
          > since I have been using JPG to archive black/white
          > documents for years and thought I was getting good
          > quality and saving space.


          I am an ex-sailor myself, and I don't know if your "Gob" refers to same,
          but let me say it seems like it might take a whack in the face from the
          main brace to convince you that JPEG format has drawbacks in image quality.

          First, the eye is the worst definer of quality becuase it could be
          fooled by images with as little density as one dot per inch if the
          distance of viewing is great enough.

          The point of this discussion is "archiving" of documents for later
          retrival and manipulation. This includes enlargement and printing, both
          of which might cause degradation.


          >
          > Today I scanned a document, actually yellow
          > paper with black printing, using the following settings:
          >
          > 200 dpi
          > greyscale
          > sized 67%
          >
          > After scanning I adjusted the gamma up a
          > bit and the contrast and brightness up a bit until
          > the grey of the background was white and the
          > printing was sharp and black then I saved the file
          > in JPG (75% progressive compression) and in TIF
          > formats.
          >
          > The JPG file is 299 kb, the TIF file is 1.6 mb.


          The mistake your making here is that changing the yellow or gray or any
          uniform background color with your software is reducing the file size.
          It depends on your software and what format and compression scheme you
          are using and exactly how your particular program manipulates the image
          for what the resulting file size will be. Not every software will
          produce the same results just because the file format extension is the
          same. This only means that the result shares some commonality, not that
          the manipulation is done exactly the same.

          Any single color would be compressed the same as white which in computer
          code is just the same as any other color as far as the amounts of bits
          and bytes it takes to represent that color. White to your printer means
          no ink, but to the code in the image file it does not mean blank or
          nothing.

          What the compression does is take long strings of the same color and by
          its algorithm represents it with less space.
          Analogous example:
          whitewhitewhitewhitewhitewhitewhite
          7xwhite

          Secondly, all of the recommendations regarding TIFF for archiving are
          for COMPRESSED files. You are comparing compressed JPEG with
          Uncompressed TIFF.


          Statements such as this can be found in many places by using your search
          engine:
          "A Note About JPEG File Compression
          A number of our vendors offer their images in JPEG format. When using
          JPEG images no image degradation is noticeable after a single
          compression/decompression cycle. However, further compression(s) to and
          from the JPEG format will degrade the image quality to an extent that
          eventually it will become invisible. To retain maximum quality in these
          images simply avoid re-saving the image in JPEG format and use
          uncompressed formats such as TIFF or EPS or a loss-less compression
          format such as TIFF with LZW compression."
          <http://www.punchstock.com/store/main?cmd=show-help&seq=bhqi:bg1>

          another site with just about everything on jpeg info:
          <http://www.geocities.com/tapsemi/>
          Many questions answered in straight forward manner here:
          <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/preamble.html>

          A page to start re TIFF (dated 1997 and some info is not the same today,
          and there are many more softwares which incorporate .tif capability.)
          <http://home.earthlink.net/~ritter/tiff/>


          >
          > When I call them back into Photo Impact and
          > display them side by side I can see a tiny bit of
          > difference. The JPG file is very slightly less crisp
          > but both are perfectly readable. The printouts
          > seem to be identical.


          Again, what is the criteria you wish for acceptability: computer screen
          readabiliy, printout readability, archival manipulation, small file
          sizes, common and inexpensive software, etc. There are trade-offs.
          There would be no sense discussing maximum aircraft speeds if we limit
          the discussion to non-jet engine types. So unless you begin with some
          assumptions and limits there will be no point to hashing around about
          the various algorithms for compression if you are limited to only one
          which came with a particular program.


          >
          > How can I do better than the JPG version
          > of this document, either size or quality wise? I'd
          > be interested to know.


          The current consensus which you can review by using your search engine
          with "TIFF file format" or "TIFF file compression" or "image format"
          and refining and directing your search will give your more technical
          stuff than you wish. Sort and hunt until you find sites that speak on a
          level you can understand and I think you'll come to some acceptance of
          this as the currently popular choice.


          >
          > Jerry Hale
          > Deltona, FL
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.