Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: what's the diff between JPEG n TIFF?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Alpha Centuari
    Posts
    240

    Default what's the diff between JPEG n TIFF?

    i have the option to store my pics in either format, but TIFF seems to take up alot more space. if it's due to compression, will the compression cause significant loss of detail? as a gauge, 1 TIFF file is abt 12mb, 1 JPEG file is abt 1mb

  2. #2

    Default

    as you've already said so yourself

    JPEG is a lossy format. Yes, its compressed
    TIFF is non-lossy.

    as for whether significant loss of details, that's really up to what you intend to do with the JPEG.
    If you are toking about taking pics, then for amateurs like us, JPEG is good enuff.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Actually, as far as printing goes, a JPEG-FINE file is as good as a TIFF. Colour Lab show me 2 prints, one made from a TIFF file, and another made from JPEG-FINE. The 2 are virtually indistinguishable. Both are 8x10s.

    Regards
    CK

  4. #4

    Default

    Tiff is usually in a higher depth.....12bits or 16bits
    while Jpeg is usually in 8bits....

    The diff in bits render diff output size...

  5. #5

    Default

    Originally posted by Bluestrike
    Tiff is usually in a higher depth.....12bits or 16bits
    while Jpeg is usually in 8bits....

    The diff in bits render diff output size...
    Hmmm? I thought TIFF is also 8bit RGB? Are you talking about RAW instead?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Zerstorer


    Hmmm? I thought TIFF is also 8bit RGB? Are you talking about RAW instead?
    TIFF can be 8 or 16-bit per channel.

    Regards
    CK

  7. #7

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    TIFF can be 8 or 16-bit per channel.

    Regards
    CK
    OK, that's for 48bit tiff. But the differences in file size are between tiff and jpg of similar colour depth are due to compression in jpg rather than colour precision.

    Bluestrike's comment wasn't clear about that.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Zerstorer


    OK, that's for 48bit tiff. But the differences in file size are between tiff and jpg of similar colour depth are due to compression in jpg rather than colour precision.

    Bluestrike's comment wasn't clear about that.
    Then you need to kok him.

    Regards
    CK

  9. #9

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Then you need to kok him.

    Regards
    CK
    no no no....
    mai kok mi!!!!
    no no no!!!!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    Originally posted by Bluestrike

    no no no....
    mai kok mi!!!!
    no no no!!!!
    Zerstorer, i do for you.... always happy to help.

    Bluestrike ------>

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Alpha Centuari
    Posts
    240

    Default

    ic .... thanks for the explanation! then i guess i shall continue to use jpeg, in low compression mode hehe. sorry to put u through this bluestrike

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,305

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Actually, as far as printing goes, a JPEG-FINE file is as good as a TIFF. Colour Lab show me 2 prints, one made from a TIFF file, and another made from JPEG-FINE. The 2 are virtually indistinguishable. Both are 8x10s.

    Regards
    CK
    That's good news... really but I would prefer to use my own files (tiff and jpeg), print them myself and see with my own eyes.

    TRUST NO ONE! Sound like you are in Survival ehhh ...

    It's just me, I believe more with what I do and with what I saw.

    Having said that, it reminds me of something which I did with my psd file. I flattened all the layers and then saved the file as jpg at high quality (7). Immediately, I saw (on the monitor) a distinct loss in sharpness...

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by jasphotography


    That's good news... really but I would prefer to use my own files (tiff and jpeg), print them myself and see with my own eyes.

    TRUST NO ONE! Sound like you are in Survival ehhh ...

    It's just me, I believe more with what I do and with what I saw.

    Having said that, it reminds me of something which I did with my psd file. I flattened all the layers and then saved the file as jpg at high quality (7). Immediately, I saw (on the monitor) a distinct loss in sharpness...
    Try JPEG-10 or 12. Even then, you might not be able to see it in the actual print.....

    Regards
    CK

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,305

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Try JPEG-10 or 12. Even then, you might not be able to see it in the actual print.....

    Regards
    CK
    Ok, I will try one day and then prove you wrong, oh I mean right!

  15. #15

    Default

    You might see the difference when you compare them digitally i.e. compare pixel-to-pixel. But I doubt it'd be much different visually since JPEG, like MP3, plays around with the limitations of the human senses, removing parts of the content that the human is less likely to notice.

  16. #16

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Try JPEG-10 or 12. Even then, you might not be able to see it in the actual print.....

    Regards
    CK
    JPEG 12 is larger than RAW

    and about 16 bit tiffs... waste of time/space, mostly. might as well buy a digicam that can save RAW (eg: CP5000,5700)
    Last edited by erwinx; 21st October 2002 at 11:55 PM.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Alpha Centuari
    Posts
    240

    Default

    is there actually a difference between 10 and 12? they both belong to excellent

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by erwinx


    JPEG 12 is larger than RAW

    and about 16 bit tiffs... waste of time/space, mostly. might as well buy a digicam that can save RAW (eg: CP5000,5700)
    Of coz. Especially if you are talking about 12 megapixel files. Sometimes when you are working off film scans or images from a camera which does not support RAW, don't want the HUGE sizes associated with TIFF, JPEG-12 is the best compromise. (like encode Mp3 at 320kbps).

    Only thing now is, after you've converted your RAW to 16-bit TIFF, done all your magic on it, won't you want to keep it as 16-bit TIFF? (or do as I do, JPEG-12?)

    Regards
    CK

  19. #19

    Default

    JPEG is lossy, but TIFF has many forms of compression, one of them which also is lossy.

  20. #20

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Actually, as far as printing goes, a JPEG-FINE file is as good as a TIFF. Colour Lab show me 2 prints, one made from a TIFF file, and another made from JPEG-FINE. The 2 are virtually indistinguishable. Both are 8x10s.
    Look carefully and you can easily make out the difference. Hint - Look for the jaggies and artefacts in the JPEG image. These are the prints on display on a small stand right?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •