On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:46:51 -0700 James Holton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So would PNG be better? It does support 16 bit greyscale. Then > again, so does TIFF, and Mar already uses that. Why don't they use > the LZW compression feature of TIFF? Because of the patents on LZW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZW#Patent_issues), I would guess. > > So, unless I am missing something, I think the best we are going to > get with lossless compression is about 2.5:1. At least, for > individual frames. Compressing a data set as a "video" sequence > might have substantial gains since only a few pixels change > significantly from frame-to-frame. Are there any lossless video > codecs out there? If so, can they handle 6144x6144 video? > Sure. CorePNG, for example, and it supports P-frame encoding. I still like netCDFv4 - its *designed* for this kind of thing, is an open standard and comes with many ready-to-go command line utilities and visualization programs. -Tim -- --------------------------------------------------------- Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanford University, School of Medicine James H. Clark Center 318 Campus Drive, Room E300 Stanford, CA 94305-5432 Phone: (650) 736-1714 FAX: (650) 736-1961 ---------------------------------------------------------
