Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mr TIFF

inventingthefuture.ghost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 157 posts

Re: Mr TIFF

#91

Post by wongarsu »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #79
shawn_w wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once upon a time there was a guy who went by Kibo who would search Usenet feeds for posts mentioning his username and reply to them...

I bet Musk hacked something together (or has a column in TweetDeck if that's still around) that continuously searches for mentions. I wonder if there's a tool like that that covers more of the internet, although the primary users would only be famous people and/or their agents / social media staff.

There are lots of tools that do this if you are willing to pay for it. "Social Media Monitoring" or "Brand Monitoring" would be the keywords to search for

Re: Mr TIFF

#92

Post by abdusco »

bambax wrote: post #67
adzm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here is the author himself confirming that in the Wikipedia talk page for TIFF! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TIFF/Archive_1#h-Source_f...

(Also: 42 is the answer to everything because it's the ascii code for *).

> the ASCII code for h

Umm. The ASCII code for h is 102 ;)

Re: Mr TIFF

#94

Post by abram »

piltboy wrote: post #75
flomo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the greatest thing about TIFF, but also the most horrible things, and probably why TIFF is mostly historical. It was so extendable that no two programs ever accepted the exact same TIFF extensions. (omitting the war story) edit: forgot about byte order...

TIFF is still very much alive in certain circles, see for example https://cogeo.org/ The format is basically a TIFF file with attached georeferencing information and with the data organized by geographical sector, enabling fast downloads of regional subsets.

The Adobe DNG standard for raw camera images is based on TIFF as well. DNG is used in lots of places, including the raw capture support built into all modern iOS and Android smartphones.

I’ve been using both TIFF and DNG this very week in my work (https://filmlabapp.com), so I was happy to read this post and learn about Steve Carlsen aka Mr. TIFF, whose work we’re still building on 39 years later.

Re: Mr TIFF

#95

Post by portaouflop »

qingcharles wrote: post #18
myth_drannon wrote: post #13

Glad that the information was preserved in the magazines, usenet messages and just text files. That will not happen with the modern web software, the internet is the dark ages of our time. All those Java,Flash amazing pieces of software and the stories of their creators will be gone long before the internet dies from LLM slop.

I think of all the content we've lost already. MySpace files are lost. Friendster archives are gone. So many YouTube videos lost to time.

I link to a lot of stuff on my personal website and every month i check the links. About a dozen or so are dead every month, many on YouTube too.

I now adopted the practice of recovering the texts I deem worthy from way back machine and downloading all yt videos I really like locally.

But ofc one day I’ll also hit the bucket; still have to work out a contingency plan for my archive for that …

Re: Mr TIFF

#96

Post by 71bw »

nullhole wrote: post #9

Don't have much to add except to mention again that the magic number for TIF is 42, and it's 42 because of the meaning of 42: https://web.archive.org/web/20210108174645/https://www.adobe... Bytes 2-3 An arbitrary but carefully chosen number (42) that further identifies the file as a TIFF file

42 even shows up in the late mr. Carlsen's obituary. [1]

[1]https://www.mountainviewtacoma.com/obituaries/stephen-carlse...

Re: Mr TIFF

#97

Post by quitit »

Quietly thankful that the spec author didn't proclaim that we've been mispronouncing "TIFF" all these years.

Re: Mr TIFF

#98

Post by mananaysiempre »

flancian wrote: post #87

I had downloaded the final Aldus TIFF specifications document, hoping to find the author’s name. However, the name is seemingly written in white text on white paper - making it invisible. What? Is there an explanation for this that I missed? Was it an Easter Egg left by the author?

Just as a side note, there are two versions of tiff6.pdf (titled “TIFF, Revision 6.0, Final — June 3, 1992”) on the ’net: one[1] that mentions Aldus on the title page and one[2] that mentions Adobe. Only the Aldus one has the invisitext. (Curiously, the metadata says it’s newer.)

[1] SHA256: dbcdf729182937ecff415dfd06806894bf03bfd741291aa3ad7ba45335673def, modify date 2002-05-10, created by Acrobat Distiller 4.05 for Windows, e.g. https://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com16/tiff-fx/docs/tiff6.pd...

[2] SHA256: 8cb1e1a2226e423ba8b88f57366a30ef1b7ad6109443ebdda072b952739a8d76, modify date 1995-09-14, created by Acrobat Distiller 2.1 for Power Macintosh, e.g. https://download.osgeo.org/libtiff/doc/TIFF6.pdf

Re: Mr TIFF

#99

Post by piltboy »

geokon wrote: post #89
piltboy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIFF is still very much alive in certain circles, see for example https://cogeo.org/ The format is basically a TIFF file with attached georeferencing information and with the data organized by geographical sector, enabling fast downloads of regional subsets.

I'm not super knowledgeable about this stuff.. but out of curiosity, what advantage does it have over NetCDF? I wrote a program processing GeoTIFF data. When I had started this project I chose GeoTIFF mostly b/c i wanted something simple. And I could load them in to Java's BufferImage class and manipulate them that way. But it seems all the pros exclusively use NetCDF and GeoTiffs are for noobs (working with atmosphe…

Generally speaking I would classify TIFF and its variants as imaging formats (or for very simple numerical datasets), and NetCDF as more suited for raw data, in particular multi-dimensional data with time series, etc.

For forecast and climatological data I find NetCDF is vastly superior, but also much more complicated to work with due to the capabilities and how open the format is. Just have a look at the complexity of the CF Conventions to see what I mean: https://cfconventions.org/cf-conventions/release/v1.12.0/cf-...

For visualizing orthophotos and the like, I would choose GeoTIFF any day of the week, as they're easy to visualize across platforms using existing libraries. Using COGs you also get the functionality of a spatial index within each GeoTIFF file, meaning that you can stream subsets of GeoTIFF files without having to scan through the entire file for each request.

Re: Mr TIFF

#100

Post by mark-r »

abram wrote: post #94
piltboy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIFF is still very much alive in certain circles, see for example https://cogeo.org/ The format is basically a TIFF file with attached georeferencing information and with the data organized by geographical sector, enabling fast downloads of regional subsets.

The Adobe DNG standard for raw camera images is based on TIFF as well. DNG is used in lots of places, including the raw capture support built into all modern iOS and Android smartphones. I’ve been using both TIFF and DNG this very week in my work ( https://filmlabapp.com ), so I was happy to read this post and learn about Steve Carlsen aka Mr. TIFF, whose work we’re still building on 39 years later.

Not only DNG, but I think most (maybe all?) raw camera files are based on TIFF.
Post reply on HN