2004.05.27 01:15 "[Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
- 2004.05.27 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 09:25 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.05.27 10:43 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 12:49 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 13:05 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.05.27 18:31 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Chris Cox
- 2004.06.01 11:50 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 16:37 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.06.04 13:31 "RE: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Ed Grissom
- 2004.06.09 20:33 "[Tiff] Re: large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
2004.05.27 18:31 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Chris Cox
The second alternative is the way I would design TIFF if I were doing it over again today, taking advantage of the fact that no old TIFF readers will be able to read "Large TIFF" files anyway, even with the minimal approach.
This is a serious question, and not intended as a flame: if I need to support a new file format to get >2/4GB support, why wouldn't I just use PNG?
Lack of support in applications, lack of flexibility, and most PNG software won't go over 2 Gig.
Chris