15 Aug
2006
15 Aug
'06
10:42 a.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Seconded.
It will be interesting to see what the real numbers/quality are...
Don wrote:
My point was that the image itself is still a TIFF -- *encased*
in a PDF package.
PDF has value in that you can put other things (e.g., explanatory
text, parts lists, source code for diagnostics, etc.) in the same
"package" -- handy when you are archiving *projects* (as is my
need)
I thought PDF's could just be used to
*encapsulate* regular TIFF's?
I.e., in much the same way that they can encapsulate JPEGs, etc.
Yes, but what would be the point? It doesn't really gain you anything
except going from a more widely supported format to one that's less so. For my money, I'm sticking with TIFF
Agreed.