lzw or lossless jpg?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Ken Weitzel, Sep 11, 2004.

  1. Ken Weitzel

    Ken Weitzel Guest


    The peter principle is working here... (things
    expand to fill the space available for their storage)

    Wondering if anyone has any opinions on the relative
    merits of lossless jpg versus lzw compressed tiff's
    for archiving?

    Thanks, and take care.

    Ken Weitzel, Sep 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ken Weitzel

    Eric Gill Guest

    Well, that explains why LZW is considered "lossless."

    I'm not sure how. Perhaps you'd like to explain?
    In a JPEG, the "corruption" is caused by the compression.

    I think you are very confused.
    Eric Gill, Sep 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ken Weitzel

    Grim Guest

    Are you intentionally trying to be dense?

    "Lossless" compression refers to no loss of detail when the image is
    compressed. LZW does this; JPEG does not. Of course you'll likely lose
    detail if the file is corrupted! That has nothing to do with lossless
    compression, other than losing X bytes of a compressed file will likely lose
    more information than X bytes of an uncompressed file.
    I think you are.
    Grim, Sep 11, 2004
  4. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Frankly, virtually anything you're goingto use for storage will see
    large catastrophic data loss anyway.

    Bruce Murphy, Sep 11, 2004
  5. Ken Weitzel

    spodosaurus Guest

    No shit dude, he was being sarcastic :) The earlier poster suggested
    that there was loss.
    The original poster was not talking about regular jpg, he specifically
    stated lossless jpg, which others in this thread do not appear to be
    familiar with.
    spodosaurus, Sep 11, 2004
  6. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Are you going to make your usual stupid claims that the media will
    never ever in a million years develop errors again? In which case, you
    don't belong in this thread becausue the original poster doesn't
    belong to your faith, he's presupposing errors.

    Of course, maybe you've converted and instead have the equally stupid
    view that modern digital media is likely to develop single-point
    errors? I somehow doubt this.

    Bruce Murphy, Sep 12, 2004
  7. Ken Weitzel

    usenet Guest

    Too true.
    I shoot RAW mode, & don't wish to degrade my originals by compressing
    them, so my solution was to buy a DVD burner & some big disk satchels.
    usenet, Sep 12, 2004
  8. Ken Weitzel

    usenet Guest

    I don't think anyone has ever made such a ridiculous claim in this
    If you have a brain, you recopy your digital archives every few years.
    (Or at least the stuff that you still care about.)
    I have files on this machine that were origially on 8" floppies 20+
    years ago & have been migrated from there through several generations of
    backup media types.
    usenet, Sep 12, 2004
  9. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    It was either him or someone else replying to him who made this very
    claim a month or two back.
    Of course, and keep multiple copies on different media.
    Yes, as do I, however idiots like the abovementioned were spouting abuse
    at me when I pointed out the lengths one has to go through to achieve
    just this end.

    Bruce Murphy, Sep 13, 2004
  10. Ken Weitzel

    Drifter Guest

    Okay, so I'm not exactly answering within the bounds of your question,
    but if lossless is the plan, I use .PNG

    "lossless JPG" still isn't and you run into all kinds of compatibility
    issues with lzw compressed tiff (or at least I have before)

    "I've been here, I've been there..."
    Drifter, Sep 14, 2004
  11. Ken Weitzel

    Drifter Guest

    Bruce... you are feeding the trolls again. (slaps ruler across your
    hand) stop that! <grin>.

    "I've been here, I've been there..."
    Drifter, Sep 14, 2004
  12. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Wow, my own personal clueless troll. Do you plan to follow me around
    USENET making stupid little comments like this one?

    Love the way you reply here, rather that to my reply agreeing with
    this poster.

    Bruce Murphy, Sep 14, 2004
  13. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Sometimes I can't resist a witheringly sarcastic reply.

    Bruce Murphy, Sep 14, 2004
  14. Ken Weitzel

    Nick C Guest

    Sometimes ?????? :)

    Nick C, Sep 14, 2004
  15. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Alright, you got me, *almost always*, how's that? :)

    Bruce Murphy, Sep 14, 2004
  16. Ken Weitzel

    Nick C Guest

    Getting close.

    Must be the Perth beer. :)

    Nick C, Sep 14, 2004
  17. Ken Weitzel

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Oi! the only _really_ bad beer, we safely export to the US.

    Bruce Murphy, Sep 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.