Does anyone here have experience using FITS files?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
joe173 Regular Member • Posts: 412
Re: Does anyone here have experience using FITS files?

Scottelly wrote:

joe173 wrote:

Apple and Google have tried to push new file formats, but even with their dominance, have not succeeded. JPEG is here to stay, for better or worse. Google's compression uses a different means to judge quality, but it is time consuming. It does provide the best quality for a given size but at a cost of great cpu time.

Flif, Webp, and others have better compression yet will not be adopted. There's too much invested in JPEG for any major changes.

Anyway, with the mostly unprocessed raw data stream, that gives you the option to use any file format container. JPEG for most people's panel displays is good enough.

Yeah, that and the established base of billions of jpeg images on the Web will keep jpeg as the primary image format in the World for many years to come . . . but I wasn't talking about a JPEG replacement. I was talking about a possible replacement for DNG and TIFF, which may be too limited for future raw imaging. I know . . . you already told me what you think about that.

TIFF is just a container for data with fields. It can handle up to 4GB of compressed data. It's probably due for another revision someday. It is flexible enough to incorporate anything needed. But that is enough space for any digital camera for years if not decades to come. I don't see how creating a whole new incompatible format would benefit anyone. What this is, is a solution searching for a problem. These obscure file formats for scientific purposes aren't meant for consumer computers. None of the workstations would even have memory to do anything with those files. You have an array of 50,000 sensors and need to store the data, that's what they are for.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow