what's the diff between JPEG n TIFF?


Status
Not open for further replies.

shuy

New Member
Sep 7, 2002
240
0
0
Alpha Centuari
Visit site
#1
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
 

Shadus

New Member
Jan 17, 2002
841
0
0
43
HWZ?
mylife.clubsnap.org
#2
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
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
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#5
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?
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#7
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.;p
 

#8
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.;p
Then you need to kok him. ;p

Regards
CK
 

shuy

New Member
Sep 7, 2002
240
0
0
Alpha Centuari
Visit site
#11
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 :cool:
 

Jul 28, 2002
1,305
0
0
Singapore
#12
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
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
 

Jul 28, 2002
1,305
0
0
Singapore
#14
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! ;)
 

Acieed

New Member
Sep 11, 2002
372
0
0
-
www.anduin.net
#15
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.
 

erwinx

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,423
0
0
Visit site
#16
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)
 

#18
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
 

shawntim

New Member
Feb 13, 2002
487
0
0
#19
JPEG is lossy, but TIFF has many forms of compression, one of them which also is lossy.
 

sriram

New Member
Mar 10, 2002
1,253
0
0
#20
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?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom