At 03:00 PM 5/14/98 -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >On Thu, May 14, 1998 at 12:41:46PM -0500, Chuck Holst wrote: >> Do you have any idea how big a file a scanned two-foot by three-foot >> chart would require at 300 dpi? A quick calculation shows that to be >> 77,760,000 pixels! > >So it's 77M at 8 bits/pixel: no problem. > >Do have any idea how compressed that file would get if you rendered >it as a JPG (or via any other decent compression scheme)? There is >an enormous amount of spatial redundancy in most images. > >(I've worked at a couple of different jobs in the medical imaging field, >one of which involved routinely generating 300 MByte data files in a >few seconds. They wound up around 8-14 Mbytes after compression.) Gee, I'm beating this to death.. Compressed Tiffs give the highest final resolution and are lots smaller. They may get the best ratio..any real graphics nerds out there? Wynne Americus, GA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************Received on Thu May 14 1998 - 20:54:54 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:29:56 PDT