2011.07.28 11:48 "Re: [Tiff] Using photon lists rather than rasters", by Leonard Rosenthol
As much as I hate to correct Chris in public, I am inclined to point out that while no one disputes that the ORIGINAL definition of "TIFF" was the acronym stated below, the actual fact is that the spelled out version NEVER appears in the actual "standard" (TIFF v6). So that OFFICIALLY it is just "TIFF".
From: Chris Cox <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:57:30 -0700
To: TIFF <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Using photon lists rather than rasters
Tagged Image File Format.
I would rather not see a TIFF “image” that is not an image and is not readable by other software.
TIFF already gets too much abuse with undocumented custom compression types that render the files useless.
In this case you are creating a vector display list, for which there are more appropriate types.
Personally, I’d just apply a better predictor to improve compression and keep the image data. If all you need are locations/centroids of photon hits – you could easily convert the image to a 1 bit/sample representation and compress that.
On 7/27/11 3:51 PM, "Terry L. Sprout" <Terry.Sprout@Agile-Automation.com> wrote:
Including the original image doesn’t help since one purpose is to create smaller files so the drive doesn’t fill up so fast. My software can currently fill up a hard drive at 240 MB/s. Some people are using a camera that outputs very sparse photons (maybe 100 photons from a 300 KB image 120 times per second) and they only want to know where the photons are located. They can then playback the photon list and create images with different exposures. The original image will consume over 600 KB per image (they’re 2 bytes per pixel) or 73 MB/s; or 4.8 GB/m; or 262 GB/h. In contrast, the photon list will only consume about 400 bytes per im