Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:15935 alt.graphics.pixutils:708
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!milo.mcs.anl.gov!midway!mimsy!nrl-cmf!buck
From: buck@nrl-cmf.UUCP (Loren Buchanan)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,alt.graphics.pixutils
Subject: Re: Image file format poll results
Message-ID: <137@ra.nrl-cmf.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 91 13:50:12 GMT
References: <1991Feb12.120203@Unify.com>
Reply-To: buck@caligula.nrl.navy.mil (Loren Buchanan)
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
Lines: 63

In article <1991Feb12.120203@Unify.com> raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
>	--  Most respondents use several formats because they have to
>	    in order to import and export images, but would prefer
>	    to use only one format.

Well, actually I would like to use 4 different formats that are all in
the same family.  These would be in order of size: PostScript hex format
(without any header information), a binary version, a lossless compressed
version, and a lossy compressed version.  By family I mean that they all
have the same row-column-[rank (or whatever you want to call the third
dimension)] ordering, a minimal amount of header information (but the
header can point to external sources of info.).

>	**  A couple conclusions (IMHO):
>
>	    ..	We need to define some genuine "ultimate" standards.
>		It should now be feasible to define a standard
>		for a simple image file format.  It's a bit early
>		to define a "full capability" format, but it's not
>		too early to begin seriously working toward defining
>		one.

Well it is actually underway right now.  DIN (the German standards
organization [equivalent to ANSI, BSI, etc.] is working on defining
Image Interchange Format (IIF) which is intended to be compatible with 
the proposed Programmer's Imaging Kernal (PIK) standard (being defined
by X3H3).  X3H3 is an Accredited Standards Committee operating under
ANSI rules.

>
>	    ..	Standards should be chosen on the basis of their
>		technical and functional merit, rather than pure
>		popularity.  Any emerging standard will need support
>		for importing a large number of old image formats.

Formal standards are usually created by political action within a 
committee.  Large customers (U.S. Government, General Motors, Boeing,
etc.) can force the adoption of standards that are not always the
best.  I think I better stop here before I get on a soapbox ;-).

The following are either formal standards or are in the process of
being defined as a formal standard (ANSI and/or ISO).  The problem
with these, is that they are being defined for use with a particular
application set, not as a general purpose image file format.

>	15	Postscript (including Encapsulated Postscript)
>	13	XBM (X11R4 bitmap)
>	11	XWD
>	2	Group 3 FAX
>	2	JPEG
>	1	CCIR 601 PAL/NTSC image YUV encoded
>	1	CGM
>	1	Group 4 FAX
>	1	IT8.4

The real problem is that there are so many different kinds of applications
that images are used with, that there is no one format that will work
reasonably well with all of them.  The good news is that we are at least
ensured of employent for some time to come.

B Cing U

Buck