TIF or JPEG?

[Scoop]

Should I be saving scans as TIF or JPEG?

Apparently TIF are better quality and do not lose quality each time
they are saved but are much larger. I am scanning 35mm film to CD
(designated film scanner) with a view to looking at the images on my
computer or TV via DVD. Also any suggestions on suitable resolution for
this?

 

[Alan Smithee]

Should I be saving scans as TIF or JPEG?

Apparently TIF are better quality and do not lose quality each time
they are saved but are much larger. I am scanning 35mm film to CD
(designated film scanner) with a view to looking at the images on my
computer or TV via DVD. Also any suggestions on suitable resolution
for this?

TIF. However, if you're producing a version for the internet or TV save a
copy as JPG which is the appropriate dimensions/quality for the medium in
question. Consider it a version of the original though.

 

[Alan Browne]

Should I be saving scans as TIF or JPEG?

Apparently TIF are better quality and do not lose quality each time
they are saved but are much larger. I am scanning 35mm film to CD
(designated film scanner) with a view to looking at the images on my
computer or TV via DVD. Also any suggestions on suitable resolution for
this?

Both. Usually archive in the best format (such as TIFF) and display in
JPG at reduced size (pixels) and quality to save file size.

IOW, since scanning is not a trivial process, scan for best quality at
the highest resolution. Do minimal color/bright/contrast adjustments
and possibly USM and save that as the archive in TIFF. Then using that
version, derive all other versions for printing, e-mailing/websites and
displaying on TV monitors.

DVD burners and media are cheap. OTOH, the burned data is good for
about 5 years, so plan on redoing the backup in 5 years... by that time
a new, higher density, backup will be available in any case.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[CSM1]

Should I be saving scans as TIF or JPEG?

Apparently TIF are better quality and do not lose quality each time
they are saved but are much larger. I am scanning 35mm film to CD
(designated film scanner) with a view to looking at the images on my
computer or TV via DVD. Also any suggestions on suitable resolution for
this?

If you are scanning the film for preservation, you should maybe scan at the
maximum optical resolution of your scanner. Film Scanners do a better job
with 35 mm film.

If you have the storage space for all of the TIFFs then that is the best
format to save your files. No lost or any kind.

However, High quality Jpegs are fine if you do not edit and resave them many
times.
Jpegs take around 1/10 the space as a uncompressed TIFF.

Jpegs only deteriorate from the original quality they were saved at if you
edit and then recompress them several times. Just copying the file does not
cause any more deterioration.

The amount of deterioration for the first compression is not usually visible
to the human eye if the compression is not too much. A jpeg quality of 90 on
a scale of 0-100 is usually not visible to the human eye.

 

[Mendel Leisk]

I think converting your tiffs to lossless jpeg2000 will cause no loss
of info, they can be subsequently converted back to tiff, with
identical histogram statistics. It will reduce file size by 20 to 50%,
depending on content. I find film scans do not compress very well,
while digital camera files do.

It's a little awkward and time consuming though. I would only resort to
this if space is *really* tight.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Scoop:

Should I be saving scans as TIF or JPEG?

I claim to know zilch, but per a thread in alt.photography, if you want
editability without loss of quality, the preferred format is RAW.

I don't know enough to understand the arguments, but apparently there are
compromises with .TIFF that aren't compensated for by additional space savings.

Something to look into if it's really important.

Personally, I save most scans as both .JPG; but occasionally as both .JPG and
..TIFF, deleting the .TIFFs unless the scan needs some major touchup.