jpeg and jpeg 2000

John Turco wrote:

Speaking of BMP, why isn't it considered a prime archival format,
as TIFF and DNG are? I mean, it's lossless and universally
supported, is it not?

It's a good question. BMP is little more than a 54 byte header and
image data, so that means no support for meta data or color profiles.
Contrary to popular belief, BMP can be compressed, but normally BMP is
used uncompressed. BMP's can't exceed 4GB, but the same goes for TIFF.

I don't know The Reason, but I guess it's because of the meta-data and
color profile thing.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/

On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
John Turco wrote:
Speaking of BMP, why isn't it considered a prime archival format,
as TIFF and DNG are? I mean, it's lossless and universally
supported, is it not?
[snip]
I don't know The Reason, but I guess it's because of the meta-data and
color profile thing.

It is listed in the US Library of Congress "Preferences in Summary"
section, along with DNG and various forms of TIFF. (It has rather low
order of preference!)
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/f...ferences.shtml

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/