What is a better file size for resolution: 24mb JPG or 18mb TIFF?
If they are both at 300dpi, is there going to be a major difference in the resolution of the image? What are the exact differences?
- 3 years ago
jpg is a compressed file tiff is not. each time you save a jpg the image quality gets worse, tiff stays the same. 24 mb just means theres more info in it but it will shrink. if you want to retain detail go with the .tiff format
- DarrenLv 73 years ago
In general Tiff files take up a lot more space than equivalent jpg files... because a Tiff file is uncompressed. In your example the Tiff smaller than the Jpg... if both files are 300 dpi... it can be deduced that your Tiff file is considerably smaller than the jpg file.
- 3 years ago
18mb uses less space.
24mb will have more data so should give
A better quality image, as the crow flies.
But with only 300 dpi it’s a big ask
You really need a printer that can print one
Picoliter or better like a cannon photographic
Printer, why are Cannons the best for
photography because they use photographic
Inks that once dry are pretty much water proof.
Very best wishes
Source:) Photography school
- FauxtonicLv 63 years ago
Did you mean PPI instead of DPI? No digital image file can be 300 dpi. DPI is a measurement used in printers and not cameras. You will set your printer to print a file at 300 dpi while the camera will save the image as a 240 or 300 PPI file.
Technically, a 24MP file will have 33% more resolution than an 18MP file. Very few cameras save images as TIFF files.
When printing, you'll want to save the image as a JPEG using the sRGB color space. Therefore technically a 24MP file will make a better print than anything smaller. However, if the two prints are, say, 4"x6", then the images are too small to see any difference. Dividing the resolution of an image by 300 will give you the largest print size that can be made from that file while still maintaining photo quality. Therefore, if you print near or at the limits of what an 18MP and a 24MP file can do, you will then see a difference in resolution.
A JPEG, by its very definition, is an 8-bit file. The way a file's dynamic range is specified is by the color depth or bit depth. A JPEG with it's 8-bits of tonality can render 256 shades from pure white to pure black. The math to calculate the number of tones is: 2 to the power of the number of bits. Therefore 8 bits or 2^8 = 256.
In contrast, a TIFF file can be anywhere between 8 and 32 bits. You won't be able to see the difference between two properly processed JPEG and TIFF files. However, where you will see the added benefit of having more bits is in the post processing. A JPEG utilizes one variable for the color and brightness of each pixel. While this saves space, it greatly limits your ability to change the color temperature. Say you had your camera set to fluorescent and you took pictures outside on a sunny day. All of the JPEGs would have a heavy magenta color cast that couldn't be removed. RAW files, which can easily be converted to either a JPEG or TIFF, use a separate variable for the color and brightness. This is how a RAW file can have its color temperature completely fixed regardless of what color balance was used to make the image.
All JPEGs must be compressed by some degree. TIFF files can be compressed or they can be completely uncompressed. If you use too heavy of a compression, JPEGs will easily show color banding. This is most obvious in blue skies where you can see strips of color due to the compression process. If you set the compression to the bare minimum, you're likely to not see banding providing you didn't over process your image.
All of this explains the benefits of TIFF and RAW/DNG file types vs JPEGs. But as I had stated earlier, if you save a RAW file once as a JPEG and again as a TIFF, you won't see any difference between the two saved images. Of course, this is true providing that the compression of the JPEG was set to the minimum amount.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- qrkLv 73 years ago
The dpi number means nothing in a image file. You can change the dpi number and it won't affect the image at all.
What is your definition of resolution. To me, it's the number of lines per unit length that can be resolved, not just the number of pixels. Highly compressed images can have horrible resolution even though there are lots of pixels.
As for your question, it can't be answered without knowing more about the image and compression used in each format. If it's a graphics image (most of the area is solid colors), the TIFF format could have higher resolution and much higher quality if a non-lossy compression scheme is used. Often times, JPEG compression will make the file size larger than a non-lossy compression scheme for graphic images due to the compression artifacts
If it's an organic photo (people, nature, ...), probably the JPEG image will have higher resolution than the TIFF in your case, but, without having the actual files in hand, this question can't be answered with any certainty. One of the issues with JPEG, it is a lossy compression format. You can use a high-quality compression setting and get results that are excellent, as in, hard to see the difference between the non-compressed and compressed image. There's also the compression matrix (chroma subsampling) used with JPEG compression. The common scheme (4:2:0) is pretty bad when it comes to rendering colors properly. 4:4:4 provides much better color rendition at the expense of larger file size. In Photoshop, using a quality factor of 8, or higher, uses the much superior 4:4:4 scheme.
If you are working with graphic images, your best best is to use TIFF with zip or lzw compression (both non-lossy). These days, PNG is acceptable and has an excellent non-lossy compression algorithm. If your job has organic images, either format is acceptable, but use a moderately high quality compression setting (6 to 8 if using Photoshop) if using JPEG.
- SmurfLv 73 years ago