Il giorno 1-06-2011 10:51, Geke ha scritto: > Sorry for creating havoc :-) I'd like to rather see this as a "get to know something new every day". ;-)
> 1. / 2. Correct. > 3. The printer takes a long time RIPing uncompressed tiff files. Nope. The printer (usually) receives the uncompressed data; the data "as is". At that point, data has nothing to do with the file format (compressed or not). One has to understand the difference between the DATA and the file storing it. Image's data is what the image is made of: pixels. Then you store the data into a file, using whatever format (and options) you fancy. The data is still the same data, but has been "organised" in some way. You can save the data in several different formats... the data remains the same*, but the file's size (and purpose) can change. (ok, some image format would change the data somehow) It's a bit like sending a gift using different boxes or packages... the different packages can vary significantly, but the gift remains the same. When you print something, the system reads the file and sends the DATA to the printer... regardless of the original file format it was saved in. (at least, that's what I understood) > So either the printer¹s CPU is the bottleneck, or the printer¹s RAM is > really too small for these files and it spends a long time juggling > around the data. I think that's correct. > Re. compression: There can be a big difference in file size, depending > on the time you spend analyzing the file. I would say this isn't true anymore nowadays (at least for images**). When you save an image, different formats use approx. the same time (unless it's hundreds of MBs). CPU are powerful enough now. It's the way the data is organised in, to make a difference in size. Saving an uncompressed TIF or an higly compressed JPG takes the same time (on a modern Mac), but with the JPG you get 1/10th of the size (or less). ** (with video is a different matter: since there's lots more data involved, different saving formats can take much more/less time) > Remember DiskDoubler asking > you if you want Fast, Standard, Small, or "Smallest/Slow"? Yeah, I do! :-D But it was 68030, 68040 and "tens of MHz" time! ;-) Nowadays, even a cell phone has more CPU power than a Mac Quadra... :-D -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
