Compression is something you can see yourself, so I'll focus on interoperability and long-term preservation. I did find problematic TIFF files whose compression upset my open-source program in the past, but I don't remember what was the exact culprit. LZW was patented until Make sure not to introduce some data loss yourself.
For the fastest save times you want to go with no compression. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.
Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Ask Question.
Asked 10 years, 7 months ago. You might also like…. Join the conversation. Member-only content. You are trying to access member content.
Are you an OPF member? Join us. Raise issue on Github. Raise issue via OPF. Email address required. Your data will be stored securely as described in our privacy policy. Stay in touch! Subscribe to our mailing list. Company Information. But when we add table entry , we must switch to bit codes. Likewise, we switch to bit codes at , and bit codes at We will somewhat arbitrarily limit ourselves to bit codes, so that our table can have at most entries.
If we push it any farther, tables tend to get too large. What happens if we run out of room in our string table? This is where the afore-mentioned Clear code comes in. As soon as we use entry , we write out a bit Clear code. If we wait any dworder to write the Clear code, the decompressor might try to interpret the Clear code as a bit code.
At this point, the compressor re-initializes the string table and starts writing out 9-bit codes again. Note that whenever you write a code and add a table entry, Omega is not left empty. It contains exactly one character. Be careful not to lose it when you write an end-of-table Clear code. You can either write it out as a bit code before writing the Clear code, in which case you will want to do it right after adding table entry , or after the clear code as a 9-bit code.
Decompression gives the same result in either case. To make things a little simpler for the decompressor, we will require that each strip begins with a Clear code, and ends with an EndOfInformation code.
Every LZW-compressed strip must begin on a byte boundary. It need not begin on a word boundary. LZW compression codes are stored into bytes in high-to-low-order fashion, i. The compressed codes are written as bytes, not words, so that the compressed data will be identical regardless of whether it is an "II" or "MM" file. Note that the LZW string table is a continuously updated history of the strings that have been encountered in the data.
It thus reflects the characteristics of the data, providing a high degree of adaptability. It must keep track of bit boundaries. It knows that the first code that it gets will be a 9-bit code. We add a table entry each time we get a code, so GetNextCode must switch over to bit codes as soon as string is stored into the table. The function StringFromCode gets the string associated with a particular code from the string table.
The function AddStringToTable adds a string to the string table. StringFromCode looks up the string associated with a given code. WriteString adds a string to the output stream. When SamplesPerPixel Is Greater Than 1 We have so far described the compression scheme as if SamplesPerPixel were always 1, as will be be the case with palette color and grayscale images.
But what do we do with RGB image data? So use whichever configuration you prefer, and simply compress the bytes in the strip. It is worth cautioning that compression ratios on our test RGB images were disappointing low: somewhere between 1. Vendors are urged to do what they can to remove as much noise from their images as possible. Preliminary tests indicate that significantly better compression ratios are possible with less noisy images.
Even something as simple as zeroing out one or two least-significant bitplanes may be quite effective, with little or no perceptible image degradation. Implementation The exact structure of the string table and the method used to determine if a string is already in the table are probably the most significant design decisions in the implementation of a LZW compressor and decompressor.
Hashing has been suggested as a useful technique for the compressor. We have chosen a tree based approach, with good results. The decompressor is actually more straightforward, as well as faster, since no search is involved - strings can be accessed directly by code value. Performance Many people do not realize that the performance of any compression scheme depends greatly on the type of data to which it is applied.
A scheme that works well on one data set may do poorly on the next. But since we do not want to burden the world with too many compression schemes, an adaptive scheme such as LZW that performs quite well on a wide range of images is very desirable. ZIP compression is a newer option. I decided to take a quick look at these three saving options and see how they compared in terms of file size and saving speed. I then saved the file with each TIFF compression mode both in bit and 8-bit color.
I timed how long it took to save each file to my solid-state drive. Next, I turned on compression, and an interesting thing happened:. Not only does it take longer to save a compressed TIFF as you might expect , but using LZW compression actually produces a file that is larger than the uncompressed original!
ZIP compression is a much better option for bit TIFFs, but be warned that it is a newer format that might not be supported on older software applications. Otherwise, stick with uncompressed TIFFs for the fastest save times.
Here, LZW compression works very well, indeed.
0コメント