Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's not that great to be honest. When you zoom in there are quite a lot of compression artifacts and the two elk are not very sharp. You could probably sharpen it up a bit, but there is not a lot of room for manoevre. The pixel dimensions are 1760 x 1087, which at 300 dpi gives you an image roughly 5x3 inches. At 150 dpi that would give you a 10x8. You might just get away with it I guess if you weren't too picky. - -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com You should also consider the copyright situation of course. - -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > From: John Coan <jcoan@alumni.duke.edu> > Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:20:36 -0400 > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Link to Montana Fire TIFF File (Original) Re: [Leica] JPEG or TIFF > > Speaking of TIFF files, remember the Montana fire picture I posted a > link to last week? Well, I did some exploring and found a link buried > in the Web site for the US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land > Management, Alaska Fire Service. It was taken with a digital camera, so > I figure this 5.6 MB TIFF file is the original format, and the best > resolution of that picture we or anybody else is going to get. > > I wish I had a decent printer so I could make an "original" print and > display it. > > If anyone is interested here is the link and instructions on how to > download the picture. The link is in an FTP directory so it's not as > simple as most Internet files to retrieve. Let me know if you have > problems. > > Also, if anyone does get it who is a digital photography whiz how about > posting to the group something about the quality of the original file. > IOW, how good is it? If I were to take the file to a service bureau and > ask them to make an 11 x 14, would it look decent? Or, should I stick > to 8 x 10? > > To get it click on http://fire.ak.blm.gov/ > > Then click on AFS FTP Site in the left frame. > > Then click on jmac > > The file name is elkbath.tif > > > > John Poirier wrote: >> >> Hi- >> TIFF is the way to go, as it uses lossless compression. JPEG uses a >> "lossey" compression system. >> >> When saving a JPEG file, you can choose the level of quality at which it >> is saved, which basically amounts to selecting the amount of compression >> to be applied. The more compression, the smaller the image file will be. >> However, increasing compression also increases the occurrence of >> artifacts such as poor colour rendition and pixellation. >> >> A JPEG file saved at high quality can look just fine, but if you keep >> the image in that format and repeatedly open and save it there will be >> an ongoing loss of quality in terms of the artifacts mentioned above. >> The lower the quality setting, the more obvious the degradation will be. >> >> If you are short on hard drive space, high quality JPEGs are not totally >> awful as a starter format while you're learning the ropes, but in the >> long run TIFF format and storage on CD-ROMs is a better bet. >> >> If you do need major compression for storage purposes, there are >> proprietary systems such as Genuine Fractals (which I use) that provide >> much better compression and rescaling than JPEG. >> >> John Poirier >> >> "Lee, Jonathan" wrote: >>> >>> Luggers, >>> >>> I am just trying out a HP S20 scanner. The software allows me to save files >>> in either TIFF or JPEG format. Is there any advantage in using one or ther >>> other, assuming the color and BW images will be exported to Photoshop for >>> manipulation and output. >>> >>> Jonathan Lee