raja@bombay.cps.msu.edu (Narayan S. Raja) (01/05/91)
I'd like to thank everyone who posted those extremely informative follow-ups to my first question about PICT-2. Actually, the reason I asked those questions was in the hope (unsuccessful so far) of answering a different question. So maybe I could just ask the original question itself: I have been using a flatbed scanner (Howtek Scanmaster) with Laserpaint II on a Mac, to scan images in 24-bit color. Now, Laserpaint II allows you to save the scanned images in many different formats, such as PICT, TIFF, or encapsulated PostScript. At first I used to save them in PICT format. Someone told me that "PICT loses information" and that TIFF would give better results. (This turned out to be true. The very same image, saved as TIFF and transferred to a Sun, is much superior to a version saved as PICT). Why so? Thanks in advance (again), Narayan Sriranga Raja.
topix@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (R. Munroe) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan4.171654.6337@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> raja@cpswh.cps.msu.edu writes: > >I'd like to thank everyone who posted those >extremely informative follow-ups to my first >question about PICT-2. > >Actually, the reason I asked those questions >was in the hope (unsuccessful so far) of answering >a different question. So maybe I could just >ask the original question itself: > >I have been using a flatbed scanner (Howtek >Scanmaster) with Laserpaint II on a Mac, to >scan images in 24-bit color. Now, Laserpaint II >allows you to save the scanned images in many >different formats, such as PICT, TIFF, or >encapsulated PostScript. At first I used to >save them in PICT format. Someone told me that >"PICT loses information" and that TIFF would >give better results. (This turned out to be >true. The very same image, saved as TIFF >and transferred to a Sun, is much superior to >a version saved as PICT). Why so? > >Thanks in advance (again), > > >Narayan Sriranga Raja. Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: Re: TIFF better than PICT? Why? Summary: Expires: References: <1991Jan3.065804.17254@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Jan4.020120.16318@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1991Jan4.171654.6337@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: UTCS Public Access Keywords: In article <1991Jan4.171654.6337@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> raja@cpswh.cps.msu.edu writes: > >I'd like to thank everyone who posted those >extremely informative follow-ups to my first >question about PICT-2. > >Actually, the reason I asked those questions >was in the hope (unsuccessful so far) of answering >a different question. So maybe I could just >ask the original question itself: > >I have been using a flatbed scanner (Howtek >Scanmaster) with Laserpaint II on a Mac, to >scan images in 24-bit color. Now, Laserpaint II >allows you to save the scanned images in many >different formats, such as PICT, TIFF, or >encapsulated PostScript. At first I used to >save them in PICT format. Someone told me that >"PICT loses information" and that TIFF would >give better results. (This turned out to be >true. The very same image, saved as TIFF >and transferred to a Sun, is much superior to >a version saved as PICT). Why so? > >Thanks in advance (again), > > >Narayan Sriranga Raja. It would be helpful if you could describe the differences. Are the PICT images banded or dithered? If so, they are probably not 24-bit images - which would explain the lower quality. There are a couple of reasons why the images might be 8-bit: 1. The scanner software was developed before 32-Bit Color QuickDraw was released. 2. The scanner software is looking for 32-Bit CQD but it is not installed so it falls back to saving PICT files in 8-bits. There is no reason that a 24-bit TIFF image should look any different from a 24-bit PICT image - especially if they were created with the same software (case in point: PhotoShop). Bob Munroe topix@utcs.utoronto.ca