Re: CALL for DISCUSSION: eXIf 20170115

On 30 January 2017 at 16:10, John Bowler
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I tested eXIf vs zXIf using jpegtopng and the 9 genuine real world
> digital camera images I have.  The *largest* file size reduction I got
> by using zXIf was 0.12%

This is yet another misleading statistics. If you delete the EXIF
metadata, you will have achieved infinite compression. By extending
your argument, the largest file size reduction you will get out of
this "infinite compression" will be probably ~0.24%.

Compressed EXIF does not make a difference with multi-megapixel images
coming straight out of digital photo cameras.

Compressed EXIF does make a difference with image crops, as well as
digital images coming from other digital acquisition devices. One
particular example is a specialized application of micro-photography:
thousands of grayscale images of a quarter-megapixel, acquired each
day, by a specialized camera, showing micro-crystals. (I have actually
worked with these images.) I can easily imagine other applications,
with images even smaller, where compression is even more important.

Advocating uncompressed-only EXIF is like advocating its applicability
for conventional digital photography only. Although that's fine by me,
myself being a photographer who just upgraded from a 1TB to 2TB
hard-drive, I would still like the applicability to be wider than
that.

Sincerely,
Cosmin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot