3 Jun
2005
3 Jun
'05
10:20 a.m.
From: "Jules Richardson"
<julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 23:15 -0700, Eric Smith wrote:
Hi
The biggest problem I think TIFF has is that it is really just
a container and not truly a image format. From what I know,
one can put just about any data stream into a TIFF. It
need not be an image.
When I said that I thought that a TIFF format was better for
archiving I intended it to mean an non-compress scanned image
thet is in a form that has little encoding.
The TIFF allows all kinds of other things. I'm not saying
they should be used.
I astro imaging, one often uses TIFF's to contain several
different color images to be processed later.
Dwight
Does any TIFF file of the nature you describe
actually exist? PDFs
with both bitmaps and text are not uncommon.
I'm not sure I've seen one, and I've dealt with a *lot* of TIFF files
over the years.
Other metadata such as the app that created the image etc. is quite
common though, and I have a feeling that Photoshop puts in all sorts of
extra tags (I haven't got a copy here with which to check)
Whether any such tags are useful to preserve is another matter.
Personally I like the accountability; I'd like to know who scanned a
document, when they scanned it, what software they used to do the scan.
Mainly because it may help at some future OCR stage in identifying ways
of improving the process or runs of documents that are likely to cause
trouble during the OCR phase. Plus of course it's nice to know who was
responsible for the hard work!
cheers
Jules