Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!chroma.cps.msu.edu!raja
From: raja@bombay.cps.msu.edu (Narayan S. Raja)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: TIFF better than PICT?  Why?
Message-ID: <1991Jan4.171654.6337@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 91 17:16:54 GMT
References: <1991Jan3.065804.17254@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Jan4.020120.16318@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Reply-To: raja@cpswh.cps.msu.edu
Organization: PRIP Lab, Comp. Sci. Dept., MSU
Lines: 27


I'd like to thank everyone who posted those
extremely informative follow-ups to my first
question about PICT-2.

Actually, the reason I asked those questions
was in the hope (unsuccessful so far) of answering
a different question.  So maybe I could just
ask the original question itself:

I have been using a flatbed scanner (Howtek
Scanmaster) with Laserpaint II on a Mac, to
scan images in 24-bit color.  Now, Laserpaint II
allows you to save the scanned images in many
different formats, such as PICT, TIFF, or
encapsulated PostScript.  At first I used to
save them in PICT format.  Someone told me that
"PICT loses information" and that TIFF would
give better results.  (This turned out to be
true.  The very same image, saved as TIFF
and transferred to a Sun, is much superior to
a version saved as PICT).  Why so?

Thanks in advance (again),


Narayan Sriranga Raja.