Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can you zip raw or tiff without loss

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:29:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either the
RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
without compression losses?

mike

More about : zip raw tiff loss

Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:29:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"mike regish" <mregish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0PudncDVGZjnls3fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either
the
> RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
> without compression losses?
>
> mike
>
ZIP is file compression, not image compression. There is no loss. The amount
of compression achieved will vary from file to file. I just did a test of a
few jpg's and nef's. Results were similar, varied between 0 and 2%
compression.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:29:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Keith wrote:
> mike regish <mregish@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress
either the
> > RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will
open
> > without compression losses?
> >
> > mike
>
> I recently had a 4mb tiff file that reduced to 1.5mb when saved as a
> native Photoshop file, the tiff had no compression applied to it.

Is it posible that the tiff was a 48 bit file and then you save as a 24
bit in Photoshop?

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:36:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A TIFF file is already tight, and using zipping it will have very little, if
any impact on it's size. To answer your question, zipping a TIFF file, then
un-zipping it, will not degrade it. Not sure how all this would apply to
RAW, don't use it, too much work.

Bill Crocker


"mike regish" <mregish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0PudncDVGZjnls3fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either
> the RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
> without compression losses?
>
> mike
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:48:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zip is lossless compression, if it wasn't it would be useless for most
applications. How much compression you might get on a compressed file is
another issue.
Dave Cohen
"Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5ZidnQ41Z8fykM3fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>A TIFF file is already tight, and using zipping it will have very little,
>if any impact on it's size. To answer your question, zipping a TIFF file,
>then un-zipping it, will not degrade it. Not sure how all this would apply
>to RAW, don't use it, too much work.
>
> Bill Crocker
>
>
> "mike regish" <mregish@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0PudncDVGZjnls3fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either
>> the RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
>> without compression losses?
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:02:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mike regish wrote:
> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either the
> RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
> without compression losses?
>
> mike
>
>
Yes. Zip is a lossless compression. However, you may be disappointed
with the compression rates you get.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:56:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam@nospam.com (Keith) writes:

> mike regish <mregish@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either the
>> RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
>> without compression losses?

> I recently had a 4mb tiff file that reduced to 1.5mb when saved as a
> native Photoshop file, the tiff had no compression applied to it.

Sometimes there are actually big chunks of compressible data in TIFF
files -- especially if there are masks, for example. Or of there's a
large background that's pure white or black. Also, 48-bit files often
compress okay, because the algorithm can find that there rarely more
than 36 bits of data in those 48 bits, and can take advantage of it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:46:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"mike regish" <mregish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0PudncDVGZjnls3fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either
the
> RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
> without compression losses?
>

If you a program like PKzip to compress the file, it will come out
uncompressed just like the origional. Some files are already compressed
like the ,jpg will not be smaller and could actually be slightly larger.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:55:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Cohen" <dave@example.net> writes:

> zip is lossless compression, if it wasn't it would be useless for most
> applications. How much compression you might get on a compressed file is
> another issue.

Not all TIFF or RAW files are compressed. On my Olympus E-1, neither is
compressed (RAW files are ~ 11 megabytes, and I believe TIFF files are ~ 13
megabytes). I find bzip2 reduces the size of .ORF files by roughly 50%.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
April 3, 2005 9:01:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mike regish <mregish@comcast.net> wrote:

> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either the
> RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
> without compression losses?
>
> mike

I recently had a 4mb tiff file that reduced to 1.5mb when saved as a
native Photoshop file, the tiff had no compression applied to it.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:01:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"mike regish" <mregish@comcast.net> wrote in
news:0PudncDVGZjnls3fRVn-ig@comcast.com:

> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress
> either the RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that
> will open without compression losses?

Tiff has a number of lossless compression options built in, and most RAW
files are already losslessly compressed.

If you ZIP and already compressed file, you are generally are wasting your
time.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:31:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

When creating a TIFF file with many programs you have several options
how to do this. One option is use ZIP compression (lossless). No
compression at all is another one and you even can do JPEG compression
(lossy) within a ZIP file. As ZIP is not designed for photos, I suppose
lossless JP2 compression will give smaller files. But with JP2 (using
decent software) you have very good control about the compression and
can do quite small files with no visible softness or artifacts at all.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:58:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alright, for the 2 mins it will take to actually find out...

1.03 gigs of raw files compressed to .98 gigs using winzip and max
compression...obviously no point.

but on the other hand

401mb of TIFFs (18megs each) compressed to 221 megs! Almost 50%
compression...might be worth it but the cost of storage these days is so
cheap its probably easier to get a new HD. You also have to worry that if
any part of the zip becomes corrupted you might loose a lot more then one
picture....

--
www.harryphotos.com
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:33:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:
> Alright, for the 2 mins it will take to actually find out...
>
> 1.03 gigs of raw files compressed to .98 gigs using winzip and max
> compression...obviously no point.
>
> but on the other hand
>
> 401mb of TIFFs (18megs each) compressed to 221 megs! Almost 50%
> compression...might be worth it but the cost of storage these days is so
> cheap its probably easier to get a new HD. You also have to worry that if
> any part of the zip becomes corrupted you might loose a lot more then one
> picture....

Hi...

Respectfully suggest that if you're going to zip large tiff's for
storage or perhaps transmission to family members that you zip
them up individually...

Ken
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:46:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:HyX3e.888789$Xk.205679@pd7tw3no...
>
>
> Dirty Harry wrote:
> > Alright, for the 2 mins it will take to actually find out...
> >
> > 1.03 gigs of raw files compressed to .98 gigs using winzip and max
> > compression...obviously no point.
> >
> > but on the other hand
> >
> > 401mb of TIFFs (18megs each) compressed to 221 megs! Almost 50%
> > compression...might be worth it but the cost of storage these days is so
> > cheap its probably easier to get a new HD. You also have to worry that
if
> > any part of the zip becomes corrupted you might loose a lot more then
one
> > picture....
>
> Hi...
>
> Respectfully suggest that if you're going to zip large tiff's for
> storage or perhaps transmission to family members that you zip
> them up individually...
>
> Ken
>
When 200 gig hds are near 100 bucks I won't be zipping up anything ;-) For
sending to ppl I recomend jpegs....
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 12:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:

> "Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:HyX3e.888789$Xk.205679@pd7tw3no...
>
>>
>>Dirty Harry wrote:
>>
>>>Alright, for the 2 mins it will take to actually find out...
>>>
>>>1.03 gigs of raw files compressed to .98 gigs using winzip and max
>>>compression...obviously no point.
>>>
>>>but on the other hand
>>>
>>>401mb of TIFFs (18megs each) compressed to 221 megs! Almost 50%
>>>compression...might be worth it but the cost of storage these days is so
>>>cheap its probably easier to get a new HD. You also have to worry that
>
> if
>
>>>any part of the zip becomes corrupted you might loose a lot more then
>
> one
>
>>>picture....
>>
>>Hi...
>>
>>Respectfully suggest that if you're going to zip large tiff's for
>>storage or perhaps transmission to family members that you zip
>>them up individually...
>>
>>Ken
>>
>
> When 200 gig hds are near 100 bucks I won't be zipping up anything ;-) For
> sending to ppl I recomend jpegs....

Hi...

Agree with the jpegs... that's why I said *if* you're going to
zip tiff's.. :) 

However, careful of that hard drive space/price thing... I'm a
real old guy, started long long ago. Bought my first floppy drive
for 600 dollars (of those days dollars). Blank floppies were
10 bucks each. Bought only one. Because each held 80k; and why
in the world would anyone ever need more than 80k :) 

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 12:18:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hehehe yea we've come a long way...


"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:z1Y3e.892358$8l.196466@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> Dirty Harry wrote:
>
> > "Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:HyX3e.888789$Xk.205679@pd7tw3no...
> >
> >>
> >>Dirty Harry wrote:
> >>
> >>>Alright, for the 2 mins it will take to actually find out...
> >>>
> >>>1.03 gigs of raw files compressed to .98 gigs using winzip and max
> >>>compression...obviously no point.
> >>>
> >>>but on the other hand
> >>>
> >>>401mb of TIFFs (18megs each) compressed to 221 megs! Almost 50%
> >>>compression...might be worth it but the cost of storage these days is
so
> >>>cheap its probably easier to get a new HD. You also have to worry that
> >
> > if
> >
> >>>any part of the zip becomes corrupted you might loose a lot more then
> >
> > one
> >
> >>>picture....
> >>
> >>Hi...
> >>
> >>Respectfully suggest that if you're going to zip large tiff's for
> >>storage or perhaps transmission to family members that you zip
> >>them up individually...
> >>
> >>Ken
> >>
> >
> > When 200 gig hds are near 100 bucks I won't be zipping up anything ;-)
For
> > sending to ppl I recomend jpegs....
>
> Hi...
>
> Agree with the jpegs... that's why I said *if* you're going to
> zip tiff's.. :) 
>
> However, careful of that hard drive space/price thing... I'm a
> real old guy, started long long ago. Bought my first floppy drive
> for 600 dollars (of those days dollars). Blank floppies were
> 10 bucks each. Bought only one. Because each held 80k; and why
> in the world would anyone ever need more than 80k :) 
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken
>
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 7:32:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
> Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> "Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:HyX3e.888789$Xk.205679@pd7tw3no...
>>
>>>
>>> Dirty Harry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alright, for the 2 mins it will take to actually find out...
>>>>
>>>> 1.03 gigs of raw files compressed to .98 gigs using winzip and max
>>>> compression...obviously no point.
>>>>
>>>> but on the other hand
>>>>
>>>> 401mb of TIFFs (18megs each) compressed to 221 megs! Almost 50%
>>>> compression...might be worth it but the cost of storage these days
>>>> is so
>>>> cheap its probably easier to get a new HD. You also have to worry that
>>
>>
>> if
>>
>>>> any part of the zip becomes corrupted you might loose a lot more then
>>
>>
>> one
>>
>>>> picture....
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi...
>>>
>>> Respectfully suggest that if you're going to zip large tiff's for
>>> storage or perhaps transmission to family members that you zip
>>> them up individually...
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>
>> When 200 gig hds are near 100 bucks I won't be zipping up anything
>> ;-) For
>> sending to ppl I recomend jpegs....
>
>
> Hi...
>
> Agree with the jpegs... that's why I said *if* you're going to
> zip tiff's.. :) 
>
> However, careful of that hard drive space/price thing... I'm a
> real old guy, started long long ago. Bought my first floppy drive
> for 600 dollars (of those days dollars). Blank floppies were
> 10 bucks each. Bought only one. Because each held 80k; and why
> in the world would anyone ever need more than 80k :) 
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken
>
The 'going price' around these parts is a bit below $.50 a GB. Not bad
considering a few years ago a 1GB drive was going for $2200! Now if
cars would just follow that pricing trend....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 5:49:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:01:51 +0100, nospam@nospam.com (Keith) wrote:

>mike regish <mregish@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either the
>> RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
>> without compression losses?
>>
>> mike
>
>I recently had a 4mb tiff file that reduced to 1.5mb when saved as a
>native Photoshop file, the tiff had no compression applied to it.

I'm almost certain photoshop uses a lossless compression to save its
native format, which would explain your reduced file size.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 6:50:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

oo Mike oo wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:01:51 +0100, nospam@nospam.com (Keith) wrote:
>
>
>>mike regish <mregish@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Say I want to send somebody a full res photo. Can I zip compress either the
>>>RAW image or a tiff with a reasonable decrease in size that will open
>>>without compression losses?
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>>I recently had a 4mb tiff file that reduced to 1.5mb when saved as a
>>native Photoshop file, the tiff had no compression applied to it.
>
>
> I'm almost certain photoshop uses a lossless compression to save its
> native format, which would explain your reduced file size.

Definitely, although the native format isn't compressed, at least
judging by the file sizes it generates.
!