2007.01.16 06:17 "Re: [Tiff] bigtiff", by Albert Cahalan
On 1/15/07, Joris <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.