[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[OT] Splitting multipage TIFF files



Hi all!

A client has landed us with a bunch of CD's containing several large multipage TIFF images. I ran them through our usual conversion tools (namely a find script that passes the images through tiffsplit), and all seemed fine and dandy.

However, on inspecting the output, it seems that half of the files are JPEG encoded in a TIFF wrapper, which tiffsplit can't handle, and neither can our £5000-worth of Adobe Capture. The result is a garblified TIFF that I can't even render, let alone OCR.

A google returned the following snippet from the libtiff mailing list:

==========

2004.02.26 10:27 "Re: tiffsplit & JPEG compression", by Andrey Kiselev

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:13:04PM +0300, Artem Mirolubov wrote:
> tiffsplit dont copy pages with JPEG compression.
> what tags i must copy with CopyField, to add such support?

I have fixed that problem, thank you for report. We need to copy
contents of the TIFFTAG_JPEGTABLES tag.

> And what tags i must copy, to add support of TIFF files with JPEG
> compression version 6.0 specification (Plz dont tell i dont need it. I
> really need it! And i defined "never" in "tif_ojpeg.c":) ?

Well, if you have enough sample files you can experiment with all tags,
defined in ojpegFieldInfo (see tif_ojpeg.c file).

Best regards,
Andrey

==========

Alot of that is greek to me, but it seems that the gist is that JPEG-TIFF support has been added.

Does anyone know if these changes have made it into the current versions of the Debian TIFF utils? Or do I need to build myself a customised TIFF library (argh!)? Failing that, does anyone know of any alternate way to batch-convert JPEG-TIFF's (preferably in Linux)? I've already tried using imagemagick, but it has some serious problems dealing with multipage TIFFs (namely trying to do all 80MB of a file at once, and running the system into the ground).

If anyone out there has more of a clue than me, I'd be much obliged!



Reply to: