At 9/7/2006 05:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
But you can zip TIF, and the end file size is less than 1/3 (I think
it's close to 1/4).
But it's still larger than the compressed PNG, and barely smaller
than the uncompressed PNG:
originalzipped
TIF 231KB 50KB
PNG 53KB
On 8 Sep 2006 at 6:44, Phil Daley wrote:
Is there a reason that you didn't try FAX-CCITT 4?
It's not one of the options offered by PaintShop Pro.
That is (supposedly) the best TIF compression for a bitonal image.
(If you don't have that capability, send me the image off-list and
I'll try
At 9/8/2006 06:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
originalzipped
Uncompressed TIF231KB 50KB
LZW TIF 122KB 104KB
Huffman encoding 89KB 53KB
FAX-CCITT 3 90KB 56KB
Packbits229KB 43KB
Good work !!
Is there a
On 8 Sep 2006 at 14:18, Phil Daley wrote:
At 9/8/2006 06:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
originalzipped
Uncompressed TIF231KB 50KB
LZW TIF 122KB 104KB
Huffman encoding 89KB 53KB
FAX-CCITT 3 90KB 56KB
Packbits
On 06.09.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
It makes no sense at all to send a black and white file as a JPG. It
makes much more sense to use GIF of PNG, which are much efficient for
this type of graphic.
Very much agreeed, not just because of efficiency, but also quality, a
black and white JPEG
At 9/6/2006 05:47 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
dhbailey / 2006/09/06 / 05:12 PM wrote:
Save the file as TIFF graphics, then open them in a graphics editing
program and save them as JPG files, with the least amount of compression
(larger file size),
Y'know, I don't know about this.
It's only 2 bits
On 7 Sep 2006 at 11:20, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 06.09.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
It makes no sense at all to send a black and white file as a JPG. It
makes much more sense to use GIF of PNG, which are much efficient
for this type of graphic.
Very much agreeed, not just because of
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 06:20 AM wrote:
If it reduces the size it will also reduce the resolution and make
everything jaggy.
You are confused. Resolution and bit depth is two different things.
Finale output is 2 bit. TIF will maintain in 2 bit. As soon as you
convert it too GIF, the file
At 9/7/2006 10:28 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 06:20 AM wrote:
If it reduces the size it will also reduce the resolution and make
everything jaggy.
You are confused. Resolution and bit depth is two different things.
You are confused.
Reducing the size of a JPEG by
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 10:40 AM wrote:
Reducing the size of a JPEG by increasing the compression ratio will reduce
the resolution of the image. It matters naught what the bit depth is.
Are we still talking about Finale output which is 2 bit tif?
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE
I thought they were talking about converting the TIFF file to JPEG.
At 9/7/2006 10:54 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 10:40 AM wrote:
Reducing the size of a JPEG by increasing the compression ratio will reduce
the resolution of the image. It matters naught what the bit
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 11:05 AM wrote:
I thought they were talking about converting the TIFF file to JPEG.
And I said keep it as tif if the file size for email is the objectivity :-)
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com
On 7 Sep 2006 at 10:28, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 06:20 AM wrote:
If it reduces the size it will also reduce the resolution and make
everything jaggy.
You are confused. Resolution and bit depth is two different things.
Finale output is 2 bit. TIF will maintain in
At 9/7/2006 11:42 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It's pretty clear that GIF or PNG is the best format, as I said on the
front end.
And I absolutely agree.
Also, since my major job function is writing code that does editing and
displaying images of many file types, I _might_ have some knowledge
David W. Fenton / 2006/09/07 / 11:42 AM wrote:
But not everyone has a TIF viewer.
Oh, c'mon. You can say that to PNG viewer. I had TIF viewer on my
Win95 but not PNG!
I just exported a single system TIF at 600dpi. The file size was
226KB. When I saved that as a GIF its size was 105KB.
But
At 9/7/2006 12:47 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2006/09/07 / 11:42 AM wrote:
But not everyone has a TIF viewer.
Oh, c'mon. You can say that to PNG viewer. I had TIF viewer on my
Win95 but not PNG!
I just exported a single system TIF at 600dpi. The file size was
226KB. When I
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 12:57 PM wrote:
The recipients DID NOT WANT TIFF.
This thread subject says JPEG or TIFF, does it not?
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com
___
Finale mailing list
On 7 Sep 2006 at 12:47, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2006/09/07 / 11:42 AM wrote:
But not everyone has a TIF viewer.
Oh, c'mon. You can say that to PNG viewer. I had TIF viewer on my
Win95 but not PNG!
If you have Firefox, you had a PNG viewer.
Most people don't have
On 7 Sep 2006 at 13:05, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Phil Daley / 2006/09/07 / 12:57 PM wrote:
The recipients DID NOT WANT TIFF.
This thread subject says JPEG or TIFF, does it not?
And my understanding was that they specifically requested JPG, which
is the least efficient and least appropriate
To the wisdom of the list,
A customer is requesting that a file be e-mailed in JPEG format. Is this
possible. If so, how does one do it? Ages ago I sent several files in TIFF
format. No problem. Now I cannot remember how I did it. I should have notes
on the process, but they cannot be found.
D. Keneth Fowler wrote:
To the wisdom of the list,
A customer is requesting that a file be e-mailed in JPEG format. Is this
possible. If so, how does one do it? Ages ago I sent several files in
TIFF format. No problem. Now I cannot remember how I did it. I should
have notes on the process,
dhbailey / 2006/09/06 / 05:12 PM wrote:
Save the file as TIFF graphics, then open them in a graphics editing
program and save them as JPG files, with the least amount of compression
(larger file size),
Y'know, I don't know about this.
It's only 2 bits source. Converting into JPG increases the
22 matches
Mail list logo
