Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

[SOLVED] No LZW for 16-bit TIFF?

Comments

3 comments

  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter

    I am no expert on this. But I found a thread elsewhere about LZW versus ZIP that included this from one participant.

    If you want to use compression, because saving the storage space is important to you or you're turning out hundreds of TIFF files per day, when saving 8-bit TIFF files use LZW and when saving 16-bit TIFF files use ZIP. On 8-bit TIFF files the difference in file size between LZW and ZIP is negligible, but ZIP takes 2-3x as long to save. On 16-bit TIFF files LZW often makes files that are larger than both ZIP or uncompressed TIFF files, so if you're going to use compression on 16-bit TIFF files skip LZW and use ZIP instead.

    https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10906/which-tiff-image-compression-is-better-lzw-or-zip 

    Ian

    1
  • Samoreen

    I confirm this. I have already made various tests about this and my conclusion (similar to what many others said) is that internal LZW compression should be avoided for 16-bit TIFF files. This often produces "compressed" files that are bigger than the original uncompressed TIFF. ZIP compression might be slower but at least, it works all the time. So, ZIP or Nothing is not an irrelevant decision.

    I'm just wondering why the LZW algorithm has been added to the 16-bit TIFF standard while ZIP was first ignored. Even the famous Faststone Image Viewer didn't support ZIP internal compression for TIFF files for a long time. This has been fixed recently.

    1
  • NFGphoto

    Thank you both for your research into this matter.  

    If P1 is listening, maybe leave the option there and give the user a warning, rather than mysteriously disappearing it.  ^__^

    1

Post is closed for comments.