- 2005.09.23 21:20 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2005.09.23 22:20 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Chris Cox
- 2005.09.23 23:32 "RE: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Philip Watkinson
-
2005.09.25 01:28 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Joris Van Damme
- 2005.09.25 02:53 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2005.09.25 02:54 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2005.09.25 04:16 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Joris Van Damme
-
2005.09.25 15:14 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2005.09.27 02:20 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Joris Van Damme
-
2005.09.25 15:14 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2005.09.25 04:16 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Joris Van Damme
- 2005.09.25 19:27 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by
-
2005.09.27 01:05 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Ron
-
2005.09.27 02:06 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Joris Van Damme
- 2005.09.27 02:21 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2005.09.27 04:25 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Ron
- 2005.09.27 02:25 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Leonard Rosenthol
-
2005.09.27 02:06 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression Schemes", by Joris Van Damme
2005.09.26 06:22 "Re: [Tiff] Additional Lossless Compression", by Rob van den Tillaart
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
looking into a PCD-type scheme. Support for large images is getting more important as the years go by. We've currently got a real problem when
It may seem counter-intuitive, but I think that image file growth may peak in the next few years. The reason for this theory is that CPUs continually grow faster while image pixel counts increase but disk I/O performance has not increased so spectacularly.
It is bit off topic but interesting with regard to disk I/O. Vibrating disks instead of rotating disks could be a disruptive storage technology:
http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?FeatureID=958
specs
http://www.dataslide.com/techspecs.htm
The parallel nature of these disks made me wonder if there are compression schemes that could take advantage of the fact that a growing number of computers will have dual (or more) cores which makes parallel compression and decompression possible.
regards,
rob tillaart