Talk:TIFF

Computing Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Multimedia Wiki

Could some of the authors contribute to the wiki.multimedia.cx tiff article? I have copy pasted some sections from wikipedia, and am unsure if it is acceptable on second thought. This was done solely by me, not the maintainer, and if it is incorrect I apologize and will remove them. Dcsmith77 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix missing data

The Tiff viewer programs are not labeled as tiff viewer software The A4 paper size is not linked or defined. Suggest adding a 8.5 inch by 11 inch file size metric.

the title should have a reference to the widely used abbreviation TIFF, so maybe its a good idea to rename the page to "Tagged Image File Format (TIFF)"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.53.249.220 (talk • contribs) .

Is there any way to read the text of TIF files? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.16.233.78 (talk • contribs) .

You can use the tiffinfo program (fairly standard on Linux, but ought to be compilable for anything) to format the metadata. There are also libraries to access it from programs. --David Woolley 10:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still true: "TIFF has an option to use LZW compression, a loss-free technique of reducing file size, however this technique is under patent from Unisys, and requires licensing fees for its use."? I thought the patent had recently expired (see http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.220.141 (talk • contribs) .

I heard it expired as well. I think it occurred at least a year ago. Jecowa 09:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of TIFF/EP

Should contain discussion of TIFF/EP - TIFF for Electronic Photography, a file format that is a subset of TIFF and puts more restrictive constraints on data content with the goal of making the files more amenable to being rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.150.10.200 (talk • contribs) 15:31, October 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have created a new article for TIFF/EP - it is different enough that it should have it's own article, and that way it will also avoid confusion. It is not in fact a subset, of TIFF - it uses a subset of the TIFF tags, but also defines new ones. Also it is an ISO standard, whereas the TIFF standard is an Aldus/Adobe standard - see Tag Image File Format / Electronic Photography Ozhiker 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fax may be more used than uncompressed colour images

There is a statement that 32 bit uncompressed images are the most common use of TIFF. This might be true in the graphic arts industry, but I suspect that the most common use is for FAX, where the data is stored in the raw fax format. --David Woolley 10:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the acronym

Wouldn't it be cool if TIFF stood for "TIFF Image File Format"? ok that was lame.M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the 42 thing?

I don't know, it just seems too cool to be actually true. OmnipotentEntity 16:41, 15 June, 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. At first, I thought is was some sort of vandalism, but it's been there since the article was created. Additionally, It's pretty vague about the actual use/significance of this number, and doesn't actually feel relevant at all. Ghostwo 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bytes 2-3 The second word of the file is the TIFF "version number." This number, 42 (2A in hex), is not to be equated with the current Revision of the TIFF specification. In fact, the TIFF version number (42) has never changed, and probably never will. If it ever does, it means that TIFF has changed in some way so radical that a TIFF reader should give up immediately. The number 42 was chosen for its deep philosophical significance. It can and should be used as additional verification that this is indeed a TIFF file." (from 5.0 spec), the 6.0 spec just says "arbitrary but carefully chosen" -- taviso 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is true: the second word of a TIFF file, 42, was indeed taken from the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, from Hitchhikers_guide_to_the_galaxy. StephenECarlsen 23:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~It would be nice if this were so, but it aint.~~ 42 = 101010 in binary. That was how it was "carefully chosen". It was only Version 5.0 of the specification which used the phrase "for its deep philosophical significance". Version 6.0 dropped this phrase. HairyWombat (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this article 'Tagged' -> 'Tag'

I've noticed that the title of this article appears to be incorrect.

The current Adobe Standard (TIFF 6.0) makes no references to TIFF being an acronym for anything, however if yor check back to revision 4.0 of the standard (by Aldus and Microsoft), the title is "Tag Image File Format" - not "Tagged". (see [1]

I think the article should be moved to Tag Image File Format Ozhiker 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I've noticed that the Adobe website refers to it as "Tagged" - I wonder if that is intentional Ozhiker 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the spec itself just calls the format "TIFF", shouldn't the article be moved to TIFF? --Zundark 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploits Section Cleanup

It seems like one person wrote the Exploits section. From the sounds of it, the exploit is supposedly "unique," but it doesn't sound all that unique, really. Anyway, I removed the links to Ubuntu Linux (except for the first one) and got rid of the underscores. Someone else should gloss over it and clean it up a bit more, especially the last paragraph:

This would just be an another exploit corrected by the FOSS model of project development, forgotten, tucked under rug, until a skylark and psp250 with a little help from Fanjita discovered this exploit could be used to get around the Firmware on the PlayStation Portable. This could potentially work on Firmware up to version 2.80

There's a specific negative view towards the F/OSS development model (as opposed to not mentioning it), as well as not explaining how the exploit ties in to the PSP (also...what's a skylark and psp250?).

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to sign it. --CCFreak2K 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the exploits section belong on Libtiff? It's surely not an inherent problem of the file format. It should be possible to write a safe decoding library... 190.188.178.151 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the buffer exploits in libtiff were fixed. 219.90.169.60 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is unique about encoding offsets into the file ? Didn't TIFF creators lift this from EA's IFF-ILBM ? Also, it's a bit poor to blame bad offset encoding for exploits, clearly this has been used in the past by hackers but it's due to a bad implementation of TIFF handling, not the TIFF standard. For example, if I forgot to add a close tag in some HTML and got your browser to run some malevolent code, would that be an exploit in HTML or in the browser ? Kegon (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this should be added to a LibTiff page too. I'm not sure why a reader should be interested in exploits when looking at reference about the file format. Especially when the exploit mentions LibTiff specifically. 83.216.149.7 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TIFF/IT-P1?

What is TIFF/IT-P1? How is it related to Tag Image File Format / Electronic Photography?--Hhielscher 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TIFF/IT-P1 is a image format standard used for advertising material, formalised under ISO 12639 - see here & here. TIFF/EP is a image format designed for use in digital cameras.--Ozhiker 14:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameras supporting TIFF section

I don't think this section is necessary - almost all cameras support either TIFF or RAW formats - listing them all would be less useful than listing all the viewer/editor programs, and either would be of little value to encyclopedia readers and would increase the article size to rediculous proportions. If no-one objects, i'll remove it. --Ozhiker 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing as with the similar section in RAW image format. (I do not object removal). Berland 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status

What is the intellectual property status of the various versions of the TIFF specification? -- Beland 19:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS TIFF

What about MS Office created documents with .tif extension, which are not TIFF-compatible? It really should be mentioned here, as this is one of the major Linux/Windows (for home users) interoperability issues. More info: [2] [3] Klon-immortal 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes give plain text files the extension .doc but they are not MS Word files. Just because MS uses the same 3 letter extension doesn't make their files TIFF. When you say "Major interoperability issue" I think you mean "Linux people who want to use MS files"; it's nothing to do with Linux/Windows, if MS Office existed on Linux then you wouldn't have this problem. Kegon (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the second link, but from a brief read through of the first link, it appears to be describing a valid TIFF file that uses valid extensions not widely supported at the time Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG-in-TIFF?

I noticed this article doesn't reference TIFF Technical Note 2, or as it seems to be called now "JPEG-in-TIFF". Should it? The external links at the end actually mention the flawed JPEG description in the published versions of the TIFF specs, but doesn't describe the solution that Adobe, libtiff, and others seem to be adapting.

I'm not an expert, so I don't feel comfortable writing about it. Perhaps someone else has some experience? Gcdinsmore (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is PIXTIFF? I read somewhere that it used JPEG compression of a TIFF file. JKeck (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exploits

What happens if a file tries to read past the physical "end-of-file"?64.180.184.69 (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for image file formats

Please see the discussion at Talk:Image file formats#Naming_conventions_for_image_file_formats on naming conventions for articles on image file formats. Dcoetzee 00:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the paragraph on compatibility (in section 'Flexible options')

About the following paragraph:

Although the currently accepted standard format, when TIFF was introduced its extensibility provoked compatibility problems. Programmers were free to specify new tags and options — but not every implemented program supported every tag created. As a result, TIFF became the lowest common denominator image file. Today, most TIFF images and readers remain based upon uncompressed 32-bit CMYK or 24-bit RGB images.

The first phrase ("Although...") could use some rephrasing for clarity (for example: "Although currently it is accepted as a standard format, ..."; someone with more knowledge than I should choose the wording). But at higher level the entire paragraph could be clearer IMO. Proposed rewriting of the entire paragraph (but who will confirm that it's correct?):

Although currently its use a standard is more or less stabilized, when TIFF was introduced its extensibility provoked compatibility problems. Programmers were free to specify new tags and options — but not every implemented program supported every tag created. As a result, TIFF is a format from which implementations may have to use only the lowest common denominator set of extensions. Today, most TIFF mages and readers remain based on uncompressed 32-bit CMYK or 24-bit RGB images.

Jacosi (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lowest common denominator for TIFF is called Baseline TIFF. All TIFF readers must be able to read Baseline TIFF, and are not required to read any extensions beyond this (although, in practice, they do). Not sure how to rewrite the paragraph you mention although it clearly needs to mention Baseline TIFF, particularly as Baseline TIFF includes "PackBits" compression (a form of run-length encoding). That is to say, the final statement in the paragraph is wrong as all TIFF readers must be able to handle "PackBits" compression. HairyWombat (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later. Rewrote paragraph, basing it on Baseline TIFF. HairyWombat (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph creates the impressions that TIF's incompatability problems stem from handling of endianess, rather than the nebulous nature of the format. Many people will arrive at this page wondering why their TIF files loads correctly in one program and not the other, with both programs running on the same machine. 83.216.149.7 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic...

...that this article contains no images, TIFF or otherwise? Surely we can come up with some sort of image for comparison, like there is on the GIF and PNG pages? — sjorford ++ 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reqscreenshot

TIFF is generally used either for lossless images (in which case there's no difference between it and raw PCX or whatever) or as a wrapper for other formats like JPEG (I believe it's used by Digital Cinema to wrap JPEG2000, if I'm reading the spec correctly.)

Therefore a screenshot wouldn't be terribly helpful, as lossless is lossless and a "wrapped" image is no different to the unwrapped version. In addition, the default uncompressed versions of TIFF are very inefficient, so adding a "screenshot" that actually links to a TIFF would add dramatically to page loading times. And that's assuming the user's browser would even support the format.

I recommend not adding a screenshot :) --208.152.231.254 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To many knowledge none of the popular web browser will display TIF files without a plugin of some kind. Posting a TIF image on the page would be pointless. The best you could do is provide samples typical of different TIF types (fax, monochrome, color), though not in TIF format. 83.216.149.7 (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Wikipedia rules

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, and this post doesn't qualify -- but I'm desperate.

I've received a file with the .tif extension. I want to read it. I don't want to develop applications or understand the history of TIFF or anything like that. The article is written for the IT professional, I think, and the ext links all seem oriented to the developer.

I'm using a Windows Vista computer and I just want to read this file (it's about 3 MB). Can someone explain to me what I do? You can give the explanation here or on my talk page or by emailing me, whatever you think best.

Maybe this isn't a rules violation if it points out that the article needs amplification for the benefit of those who can scarcely understand a word of it as it's now written. I'm not saying that the existing content should be dumbed down, because presumably it's appropriate for many readers, but the article would be better off if it had some basics that were comprehensible to a reader without a background in computing. JamesMLane t c 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super User might be the appropriate place to ask your question. --Mortense (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think you should find a tutorial on how to use your computer here? If you picked up a printed encyclopedia would you expect it to tell you how to install software and use it? I think not. Nothing in the article needs to change. 124.171.13.48 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPI explained

In section In document imaging: is "pixels per inch of resolution" necessary when there is already a (Wikipedia) link to PPI?

Is there a general policy for this?

--Mortense (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]