[ILUG] Image Formats: the end

[lbedford at wbtsystems.com]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 12:32:25AM +0100, Kenn Humborg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:07:04PM +0000, Mr. B. wrote:
> > Hi all again,
> > 
> > ok thanks to all for the info.
> > I have made all the necessary representations to the parties involved (namely sister's company)
> > and I presume the It head <insert top dog> will make up their minds.
> > 
> > Well, the reason I was told for the decision for the Tiff format was:
> > "it seems as if the compresed multipage tiff is the way my IT consultant dude tells me i should be   
> > going."
> > 
> > Now, I don't know *exactly* what a multi-page tiff is, but it does seem that 
> > these tiff files will be word documents scanned in from pre-intranet days.
> 
> Now, _that's_ a different story.  The TIFF file format allows for multiple
> pages to be stored within the one file.  Handy for dealing with documents,
> rather than images (think multi-page faxes, or scanned docs as you mentioned).
> 
> TIFF makes much more sense than either GIF, JPEG or PNG for these
> applications.  I don't think you (or the users) will want to deal with
> the 100+ JPEG files it might take to deal with one document.
> 
> I think everyone assumed that you meant the images on the actual web
> pages when you asked originally.
> 
I have to say, pdf would be a good option. If you could OCR the tiff, or just
print the word document to PDF. It's a lot smaller than the tiff as well, and
it's scalable. It is also guaranteed to work under most OS's, even Linux if
you don't encrypt it (I know that there's ways around it now)..

L.
-- 
Liam Bedford                  | Obscure, la force est noire 
System Administrator          | Comme le chateau où flotte l'etendard, 
WBT Systems, Block 2,         | notre drapeau. Sois sûr, que sous les 
Harcourt Centre, Harcourt St. | feux, la verite est masquee 
01-4170100                    | Viens, bascule de notre côte, obscur