Working with TIFF v.s. JPEG still images

I have an image as a TIFF file and as a JPEG. The TIFF is 78.9 MB, the JPEG version is 14.1 MB.

Resolve has accepted the TIFF file, somewhat to my surprise as I recall having read somewhere that Resolve doesn't like still images over 16MB in size. For that reason, up till now I'd always only been using smaller JPEG versions.

Have I got things wrong? Will Resolve work just fine with the lager TIFF file? If so, are there advantages to using the TIFF over the JPEG? Or does Resolve reduce them both for my UHD timeline, such that there is really no difference? Would grading be any different with the TIFF v.s. the JPEG? Would a zoomed in TIFF be any sharper than a zoomed in JPEG?

Thanks.

John

There's no limitation about TIFF sequence file in Resolve.

TIFF is lossless, JPEG is lossy. That's why TIFF is much larger.

Thanks. I understand the difference between the two kind of file. Wondering though whether there is any actual difference in the outcome when used in Resolve.

Thanks. I understand the difference between the two kind of file. Wondering though whether there is any actual difference in the outcome when used in Resolve.

You'll get a better quality with TIFF. By the way, you can use the LZW lossless compression with it.

There isn’t a size limits, if you work with exr format (often from vfx) you could huge single frame size, with multiple layer and additional datas without problems (except speed of disk ).

If you need to keep low size you can use png sequence that can have alpha, up to 16bit depth and it’s compression is mild against tiff l’ha which is a bit more cpu stressing.



Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

The size limit you may have read about is the resolution in pixels, not the file size.

Jpeg can be lossless too, if one wants to. Lossy vs lossless argumentation is pretty random anyway when anyone is happy with prores, dnx and all other lossy codecs. Question is whether relevant data is kept or not. If it is, lossless will only fulfill the disk, not any objective.

I'm attaching a screen grab of a tight close up within an archival image, the image on the left is the JPEG, on the right the TIFF. I don't see any difference. (Might not be the best example, as to attach the image I had to render it as a JPEG less than i MB in size.)

The TIFF is much cleaner.

(Just kidding - can't really see the diff with both being low resolution images)

I'm guessing if you do some pixel peeping with hi resolution images you might see a difference - also depends on what you are doing with the images - my guess is that a good TIFF image will withstand more tweaking on the color page that a JPEG, all else being equal with the JPEG falling apart as you push and pull the luminance and saturation.

Thanks Steve. I thought that might be the explanation. I'm working with a series of black and white archival images and will be doing some adjusting of contrast, plus some sharpening. I'll be moving over the images, and zooming into portions of them. I'd suspect when doing all this TIFFs can't but be an advantage. Thanks again for your comment.

John

One last point: TIFF can be 16 bit. Of course, I don't know if this is the case here.

Thanks Steve. I thought that might be the explanation. I'm working with a series of black and white archival images and will be doing some adjusting of contrast, plus some sharpening. I'll be moving over the images, and zooming into portions of them. I'd suspect when doing all this TIFFs can't but be an advantage. Thanks again for your comment.

John

If the TIFFs and JPEGs are saved from the same original and the JPEGs are saved at high quality then it is most unlikely you would be able to see any discernable difference. It's when you do additional editing and resaving that you might start to see the JPEG quality deteriorating and where using TIFFs might be advantageous. A lot will depend on the quality of the originals.

TIFFs are better for high-quality edits, maintaining detail when adjusting contrast and sharpness, while JPEGs can lose quality with repeated saving. For archival images, stick with TIFFs for better results. For compressing TIFF or JPEG images you can also use online jpeg compressor tool.

TIFFs are better for high-quality edits, maintaining detail when adjusting contrast and sharpness, while JPEGs can lose quality with repeated saving. For archival images, stick with TIFFs for better results. For compressing TIFF or JPEG images you can also use online JPEG Compressor tool.

I second that. Years ago I had to write code to create image files from raw data. jpg files target minimum size and they do that by literally throwing away image data that psychologically we don't miss. This works really well for "typical" conditions, particularly only editing the image once. TIFF images will retain data in the highlights and shadows better than jpg (but not as good as raw), and can be re-edited with little or no degradation to the final image.

In short, if I am editing photos I never use jpg until I have something ready to deliver, and even then I save as png unless there is a specific reason for jpg.

A 16 bit TIFF can retain as much information as RAW, only less efficient. And it can even contain an alpha channel.

I was into shooting still for print ads as young person before getting into motion film.
The offset presses for high end print in those days used imagesetters to do the 4 color separations for offset Weber press runs ( CMYK inks like Pantone ). As everything evolved ( invention of computers and RGB based printing happened ) people started to invent new image formats and offset high end stuff started to go to places like Japan. Some image formats, like TIFF, were used by programs like Quark Xpress for high end CMYK printing, where dot screens were added to pages with registration marks and so on. Normal would be about 300 dots per inch ( DPI) and high end about 600 dpi. Video uses 72 PPI ( pixels per inch ) in general. Why know about this ? Because the purpose and the result of the image formats matter with regard to your product. In this case it's video. It makes no sense to use TIFF because PNG will give you all you need with much less bytes on your drives ( source drives, cache, project etc.)
If you were doing print I would use the TIFF.
Your video editing program couldn't care less about TIFF cause it isn't ever going to get anything more from a TIFF than it would give you for a PNG.

Your video editing program couldn't care less about TIFF cause it isn't ever going to get anything more from a TIFF than it would give you for a PNG.

That's true if you are only showing an image. If you are editing, e.g. colour replacement, that may not necessarily be the case.

Video uses 72 PPI ( pixels per inch ) in general.

Modern laptops have up to 254 PPI, smartphones even more. But pixel density is irrelevant to the question of uncompressed TIFF vs. compressed JPEG.
As others have pointed out, the more you tweak the image the more you will notice compression, especially if you push brightness levels. Also you will notice the decreased sharpness if you zoom in. Most of all you will regret working with JPEG when you have to key out hair from a grenscreen shot.
As far as I know JPG is always 8-bit, so there is a constraint on color space. You will not be able to go beyond sRGB/rec709.
But depending on your use case, JPG might still be the easiest and best solution.