Web lists-archives.com

Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size

On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 13:43:40 (+0000), Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I'm replying to the top-level of this thread because it's not a direct
> reply to any particular message, but the thread reminded me of
> something.
> I occasionally scan large piles of paperwork using an MFP belonging to a
> local University. It emails me the results and has several options for
> the format and quality.
> What I wanted was lossless files, so I selected TIFF instead of JPEG or
> PDF. But I later discovered that modern TIFF is a versatile container
> format, and the printer was sending me JPEG-in-TIFF.

I can understand the mistake. TIFF was a godsend discovery for me when
I had raw image data that I wanted read by "conventional software" as
it's very easy to package it up. And the tagging system means that you
can choose what to read in the file without getting indigestion.
But then you realise that the more modern tags let you package all
sorts of strange things in the file and if you want to read those
sections, you've got to do all the dirty work of unpacking it.
(I neven did more complex than palette colours and runlength encoding.)

But what a disappointment that you didn't get simple tags and
raw data.

BTW a lot of people make a similar mistake with WAV files, assuming
that a .wav extension specifies certain properties of the file contents.