You are viewing limited content. For full access, please sign in.



TIFF JPEG compression?

asked on October 31, 2017 Show version history

What are the pros & cons of using this compression in the Snapshot virtual printer?

Why isn't this the default compression in Laserfiche?


0 0


replied on October 31, 2017 Show version history

The question really comes down to what is more important, or necessary, in your organization:

Preserving image quality, or controlling file size.


In short,


PROS: Lossless compression, "archive" quality

CONS: Larger file size



PROS: Smaller file size

CONS: "Lossy" compression, lower quality

2 0
replied on November 1, 2017

I did some further testing with this. I used a sample file that was 3.34MB and the TIFF JPEG compression reduced the output tiff by 56%. I did some much larger file sizes and the results were VERY different from the smaller file size:

Original File:   % of original

1022MB          466%

70MB              537%

49MB              913%

15MB              194%

The above stats are from some random types of docs. Some with all b&w pages, others with a mix. This was a test on file size only. So clearly, what the document contains effects the output file size.

I did one additional test on a 41MB file that contained pictures only. The result was output 102% of the original size.

So a very rough theory I have right now is that if the doc you need to compress 1) needs to be in color and 2) is all pictures or mostly pictures, TIFF JPEG could potentially be useful.

Anyone have any input on this?


0 0
replied on November 1, 2017

I would also recommend you visually inspect some of the test documents (including zoomed in). The more colorful/complex images will yield the largest size reductions, but they are also the ones that will be most affected by the difference in quality.

It is worth noting that true black and white images do not use the TIFF LZW format in Laserfiche, they are stored as TIFF Group IV, which is a substantially smaller colorless format and would be far better for B&W than TIFF JPEG.

1 0
replied on November 1, 2017

Good info, thanks! I did zoom into the images and they all look very, very good.

I have found that "TIFF LZW monochrome stucki" looks the best and actually creates a reduction in file size (46%) from the original with a file 3.43MB. The same file using "TIFF Group 4 Stucki" did not reduce the file size at all. Some of the other photo processing profiles reduced it (Jarvis.., and Floyd..) but the image didn't look as good as Stucki.

I am doing another test on larger file sizes now using the "TIFF LZW monochrome stucki" config.

0 0
replied on November 1, 2017

As Jason said above, B&W should use the default. If, however, you need to do large scale back or volume scans and colour is required, TIFF-JPEG works well as we have reviewed quality on large scans on different client sites but the caveat is that they suffer some degree of loss. 

I recommend reviewing what your objectives are (i.e. archive or not) when determining the type to use.

1 0
You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Sign in to reply to this post.