Re: Compression
Re: Compression
- Subject: Re: Compression
- From: Joel <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 07:41:58 -0500
Harvey Ferdschneider wrote:
(clip)
> There was a problem with their end, not accepting a 50 MG file on their
server. The art director suggested, for the future, trying to compress
> via Stuffit', as a way to not lose any quality and get the images sent.
(clip)
Lee Manevitch wrote:
As I understand it, Stuffit uses LZW compression. Having said that, it would
make no difference whether you sent the customer a LZW compressed TIFF or an
uncompressed TIFF compressed with Stuffit. Furthermore, you may find that
trying to compress the already-compressed file will result in a larger file
size due to Stuffit's overhead - I haven't tried to see.
It really doesn't matter. We had a customer who insisted on stuffing JPEG
images before sending them to us. Once a file is compressed, it's
compressed. No sense wasting time compressing it again.
And shame on you for sending a 50MB email! :-)
How about 68MB PDF files?
Just kidding...but not really.
Good points on the LZW and JPEG stuff, but I'll just poke my nose in
here and add:
Because many servers are UNIX-based it is best to compress jobs into
single or multiple packets (single folders, self-extracting) and, if
you really want to be sure, rename the compressed file to comply with
the eight-character.three character (8x.xxx) file naming convention.
Such a file will pass through virtually any server without being
renamed or buffaloed by dem der PC types.
Also Tiff files saved using LZW are not recognized by some
applications, RIPS, etc. Thought you might want to know if you get a
'job error loading'or 'unrecognized file type' message...yada yada
yada.