AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2007.01.15 01:09 "[Tiff] bigtiff", by Albert Cahalan
2007.01.15 03:42 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Frank Warmerdam
2007.01.15 06:00 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Albert Cahalan
2007.01.15 08:01 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Joris
2007.01.15 16:12 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Albert Cahalan
2007.01.15 17:22 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Frank Warmerdam
2007.01.15 17:34 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Joris
2007.01.16 06:17 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Albert Cahalan
2007.01.16 09:25 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Joris
2007.01.15 09:13 "RE: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Tillaart, Rob van den
2007.01.15 09:43 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Joris

2007.01.16 06:17 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Albert Cahalan

On 1/15/07, Joris <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be> wrote:

> Albert Cahalan wrote:

The waste is less than a millionth of the file size, or 0.0001 %. At "ten times", it's still only 1/100000 of the file size, or 0.001 %.

Ah, is it?

Say an image is 32x32 pixels. You have those, in TIFF. Say there are ten

Yes, TIFF. There is no reason to break TIFF6 compatibility for such an image. Putting little icon files in a less-compatible format that already wastes space on extra-big IFD offsets is not sensible. Doing this for no gain, and breaking all the old TIFF readers, should be very strongly discouraged.

Once you get into the gigabytes, a few kilobytes here and there just isn't an issue.