M.Chapman Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) https://www.dpreview.com/news/5829652105/jpeg-xl-image-format-promises-smaller-files-backwards-compatibility-and-more Mark Edited July 23, 2021 by M.Chapman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobD Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 A quick look seems to indicate that lossless tiff files will no longer be needed, that would be a huge saving on disk space for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted July 24, 2021 Share Posted July 24, 2021 19 hours ago, BobD said: A quick look seems to indicate that lossless tiff files will no longer be needed, that would be a huge saving on disk space for me. As I read it, Bob, this new format will only convert existing JPEG files losslessly, i.e. a lossless conversion of an already lossy file, so if you want a lossless original you will still need to keep TIFFs. I'm certainly not getting rid of mine. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 24, 2021 Share Posted July 24, 2021 With disc space being cheap these days it is worth hanging on to tiff files anyway. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobD Posted July 24, 2021 Share Posted July 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Inchiquin said: As I read it, Bob, this new format will only convert existing JPEG files losslessly, i.e. a lossless conversion of an already lossy file, so if you want a lossless original you will still need to keep TIFFs. I'm certainly not getting rid of mine. Alan Yes I did see that point, but further down the article it says. 'JPEG XL further includes features such as animation, alpha channels, layers, thumbnails, lossless and progressive coding to support a wide range of use cases including but not limited to photo galleries, e-commerce, social media, user interfaces and cloud storage,' reads the official overview. What the creators promise is superior image quality, a codec ratio smaller than the typical 20:1 to 50:1, and encoding plus decoding without hardware acceleration on mobile devices. Which I took to mean it will be lossless from any conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted July 24, 2021 Share Posted July 24, 2021 I'm still skeptical. I don't see how you can get compression greater than existing JPEG files losslessly. But if they have really hit upon some magic formula then it would truly be an amazing development. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Photography Posted July 25, 2021 Share Posted July 25, 2021 On 23/07/2021 at 13:19, BobD said: A quick look seems to indicate that lossless tiff files will no longer be needed, that would be a huge saving on disk space for me. The latest Tiff file format can contain multiple layers and masks which is why they become so bloated if not flattened. Try saving a Photoshop multi-layered image as Tiff, close the Tiff image and then reload it. The layers are restored in Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted July 25, 2021 Share Posted July 25, 2021 (edited) TIFFs have been able to retain layers and channels since the 90s so that is nothing new. Unless there is some new magic afoot that has evaded my consciousness, you can't flatten a TIFF file and restore the original layers in Photoshop. Once flattened the layers are gone for good. However, it beats me why any Photoshop user would save as TIFF anyway as PSD is a much more efficient format for layered images. For 16 bit images, uncompressed layered TIFFs are a lot larger than the equivalent PSD file and tend to be a lot slower to use if there are multiple layers. There does not appear to be much difference in terms of file size for flattened images but again PSD is far more efficient in my experience. If I work on layered files, I keep everything. Disk space is really cheap nowadays but reworking a layered image is not in terms of time, however one values that precious commodity. Edited July 25, 2021 by MDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted July 26, 2021 Author Share Posted July 26, 2021 22 hours ago, MDM said: However, it beats me why any Photoshop user would save as TIFF anyway as PSD is a much more efficient Indeed. Perhaps because they aren't sure they will always be a Photoshop user and think TIFF is more widely supported? However I find quite a few non-Adobe image editors will open PSDs, so that shouldn't really be a concern. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now