Date   : Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:34:33 +0100
From   : Paul Wheatley <p.r.wheatley@...>
Subject: Re: djvu quality

>From a preservation point of view I'd reccomend PNG over TIFF. Much more
stable, well defined and less open to "interpretation" by software authors.

Paul

Mark Usher wrote:
> 
> OK, I have put the images up now.
> There does seem to be some loss by djvu, so that seems to be out of the
> running to.
> I did try the PNG format back at the start of my investigations, but wasn't
> really getting any smaller file sizes than with LZW compressed .tiffs
> 
> Mark
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-bbc-micro@...
> > [mailto:owner-bbc-micro@...]On Behalf Of W.H.Scholten
> > Sent: 28 July 2001 13:00
> > To: bbc-micro@...
> > Subject: [BBC-Micro] djvu quality
> >
> >
> > L.S.
> >
> >
> > Mark seems to be away, so can anyone else make some scans/djvu's->grab
> > window?
> >
> >
> > Mark Usher wrote:
> >
> > > [in reply to Wouter Scholten]
> > > >Could you make screenshots of some pieces? (bmp/tiff).
> > > The original files (with LZW compression) are :-
> > > cover.tiff - 6.11MB
> > > page62 - 1.83MB
> >
> > That doesn't answer my question. I want to know what the picture quality
> > is of the original and the djvu, so a tiff of a piece of the original
> > (or the entire original) + tiff of the djvu image shown by the
> > webbrowser by grabbing a screenshot (e.g. with xv).
> >
> >
> > Wouter
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Camileon Project Officer
http://www.si.umich.edu/CAMILEON/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/camileon
0113 233 5830