Direct integration of TIFF-G4
Laurent S.
Hi all,
"TIFF Group4 fax" (=TIFF-G4) is, I believe, still the most efficient lossless,
convertible, and standard format for 'crisp' bw (= bilevel) images --
say from scanning print or linedrawings.
I recall that the PDF norm allows 'direct' integration of JPG and
TIFF-G4 bw image files; whilst most other filetypes (like PNG) must
undergo reformatting.
'Direct' means without rescaling or any format conversion.
MY QUESTION: Does pdfTeX now support 'direct' inclusion of TIFF-G4
bilevel (=bw) bitmapped graphics objects into its PDF
output?
I imaging that the answer would be yes if there were direct
integration of TIFF-G4 into EPS files.
PARELLEL QUESTION: Is there 'direct' inclusion of TIFF-G4 by TeX
and dvips (or variant) into the PS output?
Laurent S.
Lars Madsen
As far as I remember tiff support was dropped several years ago because
of the multiple definitions etc.
--
/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)
LaTeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
LaTeX book: http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/ (in Danish)
Remember to post minimal examples, see URL below
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxampl
http://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
Robin Fairbairns
>Laurent S. wrote:
>> "TIFF Group4 fax" (=TIFF-G4) is, I believe, still the most
>> efficient lossless, convertible, and standard format for 'crisp' bw (=
>> bilevel) images -- say from scanning print or linedrawings.
are you sure? can you provide references for that statement?
>> I recall that the PDF norm allows 'direct' integration of JPG and
>> TIFF-G4 bw image files; whilst most other filetypes (like PNG) must
>> undergo reformatting.
png can be embedded.
the only file types pdftex copes with (natively) are pdf, jpeg and
png. this has been the case for a long time.
>> 'Direct' means without rescaling or any format conversion.
>>
>> MY QUESTION: Does pdfTeX now support 'direct' inclusion of TIFF-G4
>> bilevel (=bw) bitmapped graphics objects into its PDF
>> output?
>>
>> I imaging that the answer would be yes if there were direct
>> integration of TIFF-G4 into EPS files.
i know of no mechanism that can do that. would a postscript engine
cope with such a file?
>> PARELLEL QUESTION: Is there 'direct' inclusion of TIFF-G4 by TeX
>> and dvips (or variant) into the PS output?
no.
>As far as I remember tiff support was dropped several years ago because
>of the multiple definitions etc.
tiff is more a directory standard than a graphics standard; it allows
you to "include" images in all sorts of forms.
long ago, we had a scanner that *only* produced output in jpeg
embedded in tiff; for a long time, the only application we had that
could use this stuff was the viewer that came with the scanner (iirc
it had some sort of conversion facility). my experience with tiff is
full of such beartraps.
for pdftex to spot the crazy uses of tiff, but accept the others, is
expecting rather a lot; and anyway, pdftex is frozen (modulo bug
reports).
provide working code and it's conceivable that you might be able to
prevail upon the luatex development people to use it; otherwise, just
forget it.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Heiko Oberdiek
> >Laurent S. wrote:
> >> I recall that the PDF norm allows 'direct' integration of JPG and
> >> TIFF-G4 bw image files; whilst most other filetypes (like PNG) must
> >> undergo reformatting.
>
> png can be embedded.
I think, the original poster means the way of embedding: copying vs.
recompressing. Nowadays some PNG are copied, some recompressed
by pdfTeX (it depends on the PNG).
> the only file types pdftex copes with (natively) are pdf, jpeg and
> png. this has been the case for a long time.
Recently: JBIG2.
Yours sincerely
Heiko <ober...@uni-freiburg.de>
Victor Ivrii
> Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFMSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> writes:
>
> >Laurent S. wrote:
> >> "TIFF Group4 fax" (=TIFF-G4) is, I believe, still the most
> >> efficient lossless, convertible, and standard format for 'crisp' bw (=
> >> bilevel) images -- say from scanning print or linedrawings.
>
> are you sure? can you provide references for that statement?
Few years ago I scanned papers playing with different settings and
here b/w tiff was the tightest
During similar experiment I found that scanning 2 pages into b/w
usually produces ~80K pdf, but mindless scanning to highest quality
colour may result in 5MB - all spent to reproduce accurately all
greasy spots and yellowishness of the paper. And taking 300page book
would propel one into 1GB pdf!
Victor
William F. Adams
FWIW, xetex on Mac OS X when using xdv2pdf can import .tiff files
directly (using Apple's graphic object for the heavy-lifting).
Might be useful if you simply want a solution now and can use Mac OS
X.
William
Laurent S.
*** Re: Direct integration of TIFF-G4 ***
Thanks to all for interesting replies!
Heiko writes:
> nowadays some PNG are copied directly [into PDF]
Do you know where posted Adobe PDF format documentation
now authorizes this? I got red lights on this matter
from several PDF experts a few years back.
Robin:
>> the only file types pdftex copes with (natively) are pdf, jpeg and
>> png. this has been the case for a long time.
Heiko replies:
> Recently: JBIG2.
Very interesting. I have heard (already long ago) that
JBIG2 includes a lossless bw subtype that is a vastly
improved version of of TIFF-G4.
Thus a converter from bw TIFF-G4 to this lossless bw
JBIG2 subtype would be a solution to my original problem/question.
Any leads on that?
JBIG2 has been in the rumour mill for a decade; has
anyone seen serious demos? Viewed by Adobe Reader? (I
haven't.) Its bw subformats reputedly outperforming TIFF-G4 would
interest me most. Even lossy ones.
William F. Adams writes:
> FWIW, xetex on Mac OS X when using xdv2pdf can import .tiff files
> directly (using Apple's graphic object for the heavy-lifting).
>
> Might be useful if you simply want a solution now
> and can use Mac OS X.
Interesting IF importing means direct copying into the pdf.
An acid test would be to take a scanned page in TIFF-G4 format like
the temporary posting
http://lcs98.free.fr/Smale_1962_p1.tiff
and post xetex and pdf files demonstrating the integration via xetex.
(I do use Mac OSX :-)
Cheers
Laurent S.
Peter Flynn
> Hi all,
>
> "TIFF Group4 fax" (=TIFF-G4) is, I believe, still the most efficient lossless,
> convertible, and standard format for 'crisp' bw (= bilevel) images --
> say from scanning print or linedrawings.
The TIFF formats overall, while popular with publishers and Mac users,
suffer from the uncontrolled addition of proprietary tags and abuse of
the index. You can see this if you try to open or convert a TIFF in
software which displays the errors ("tag directory not in sort order"
was a popular one, I seem to remember).
I gave up using TIFF many years ago, both as a waste of space and a
waste of my time. There may be technical arguments for its losslessness,
efficiency, or convertibility, but these are far outweighed by its
unusability.
///Peter