<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><PRE><FONT face=Arial size=3><SPAN class=150572009-29112006>Matt wrote:</SPAN></FONT></PRE><PRE><FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN class=150572009-29112006>></SPAN>Hi Jukka, I note from your stats that the TIFF process at 246 images per
<SPAN class=150572009-29112006>></SPAN>minute is double the closest competitor, ECW at 123. Is that tiff with
<SPAN class=150572009-29112006>></SPAN>or without compression? What I'm wondering is if for archival purposes
<SPAN class=150572009-29112006>></SPAN>tiff might be the best lossless route.
<SPAN class=150572009-29112006>Hi Matt,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></PRE></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN class=150572009-29112006>Those
are tiled, without compression, and with overviews even those do not
matter in my test because I am hitting the full resolution to keep
things as simple as possible. For archiving I am satisfield with
JPEG2000. The slow performance of JPEG2000 discussed in this thread
concerns just the use through server and especially GDAL/MapServer route.
In local use JPEG2000 performs great. Well, unfortunately not with
all software, including many market leading GIS-packages. But if
you are willing to serve lossless archive images with Mapserver I believe
compressed TIFFs would be better choice that JPEG2000. I am awaiting with
my archive for the streaming geospatial JPIP server
and usable JPIP clients :)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN
class=150572009-29112006></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN
class=150572009-29112006>-Jukka-</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><!--endarticle--></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>