Thanks for all the feedback, although I have to admit I'm a bit
overwhelmed.
Jan Steinman <Jan@Bytesmiths.com> writes:
> If you don't need to ever share files with Mac users, use whatever
> the Microsoft metafile format is.
No chance. I do not consider proprietary, de-facto "standards" to be
standard, *especially* if they were written by Microsoft. Give me
something that has been written by the IETF or some other standards
body. Think interoperability.
> However, if there's the slightest chance you'll be feeding this file
> to a graphics professional -- service bureau, stock photo house, ad
> agency, etc., use TIFF because those places will more likely than not
> be using Macs.
Thanks, that was the most useful bit of information I heard.
Basically, I'm scanning a bunch of slides and burning CDs. I'll be
(later) processing the scans with the GIMP and other software on
Linux. I'm making copies of the CDs for a friend who probably uses
Photoshop on Windows, and someday I may wish to give the images to a
graphics professional.
I may be using the term "raw" incorrectly--I just mean that that the
images have not gone through any laborious post-processing after
scanning. I am using an auto-adjust button and tweaking the contrast
in Xsane which performs the scans though.
OK, so I should use TIFF. Now, on to compression.
Xsane, via libtiff I'd imagine, provides several compression
schemes: JPEG DCT, and something called "pack bits". Is the JPEG DCT
compression LZT in sheep's clothing or is this something I could use
that would be universally accepted?
-- Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com> Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ. Vote Libertarian! If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 17 2000 - 23:50:25 PDT