Hello all I'm scanning all the certificates and documents I obtained in the UK recently on a research trip and am wondering (again, still .) about the pros and cons of bmp versus jpg for TMG and Second Site. All my exhibits are external. Is there any downside to using bmps as TMG exhibits? (I have over 16,000 exhibits at the moment and growing fast) I understand that many TMG users create different formats in different folders but I'm trying to avoid, or at least minimise, multiple formats for the same exhibits. However my recollection is that John Cardinal has suggested using jpgs for Second Site. Is this essential and what problems might I have if I try to use bmps? Should I just scan as jpgs to start with and forget the bmps? To put this into context the Second Site output I am working towards will be for around 6,000 people (all descendants of 1 couple) and the exhibits will probably be around the same number. Any thoughts and advice would be appreciated Ann

Ann, I have skimmed the other responses, and as far as I can tell, no one else has mentioned the most important point: BMP is not a valid image format for use on web pages created by Second Site. When Second Site's image support was implemented, the valid web page image types were JPG, PNG, and GIF. ***So, if you intend to use Second Site, you should not use BMP exhibits.*** HTML5 supports some other image types, notably SVG, but as far as I can tell, BMP is not one of them. A particular browser may or may not support BMP, but that's irrelevant. The HTML5 standard is not explicit about the image types, but if I recall correctly, previous versions (HTML4) were more precise. Whether BMP is valid or not, BMP is not a good choice for use on a web page. For most pictures, i.e., digital (or scanned) photographs, you should use JPG. As others have mentioned, the JPG version of a BMP file will be much smaller than the BMP file. JPG will lose some detail during compression, but the difference is usually not visible to the eye if you use one of the lesser compression settings. If you are concerned about losing detail, perhaps with the image of a scanned document, you can use PNG. The "full color" PNG format will compress the image but will not lose any detail. There are also versions of PNG that restrict the color palette. Those versions will lose some detail, but in a different way than with JPG, and the difference makes color-palette-compressed PNG images more suitable than JPG for scanned documents. PNG images support transparency, i.e., some pixels in the image will be invisible and allow the background to show through. That's typically not a requirement for exhibit images. I only mention it because standard JPG does not support transparency. GIF is similar to a PNG image that is limited to 256 different colors. I'd stick with either PNG or JPG, so I won't provide any other comments about GIF. There are many ways to mass-convert images from one format to another. Other people have mentioned them, so I'll skip that topic. John

Just to add a little different thought process. Never in my wildest dreams do I think I will ever use ALL my images (census, land records, tombstones or even all the pictures of people) as exhibits in TMG or in the SS Image Galleries. I scan everything as tiffs and keep in master files organized by family and type of image (except for Census' which are in their own category). When I want to use an image of any sort as an exhibit, I export or save it as a jpg to my Exhibit folder which holds all my TMG exhibits and/or in Image folders for SS Image Galleries. I have established the size and resolutions I want for each type of use and set them upon conversion to jpg. I happen to use Adobe Lightroom. I'm sure other programs will allow this also. I scan as tiffs in order to get the largest amount of detail and pixels so I can copy, edit, enhance or crop without losing quality. In LR you never actually change your original, so my master/negative stays intact and I make the jpg out of the processed image. I can crop in several different ways, enhance or edit and then the jpg goes into the Exhibit folder or SS Image Gallery folders at the size and resolution I want. I NEVER want to edit my original. I want it in a safe place like we used to keep film negatives so it can be used or edited over and over again without loss of quality. Kaye On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Ann Carson via <tmg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello all > > > > I'm scanning all the certificates and documents I obtained in the UK > recently on a research trip and am wondering (again, still .) about the > pros > and cons of bmp versus jpg for TMG and Second Site. > > > > All my exhibits are external. > > > > Is there any downside to using bmps as TMG exhibits? (I have over 16,000 > exhibits at the moment and growing fast) > > > > I understand that many TMG users create different formats in different > folders but I'm trying to avoid, or at least minimise, multiple formats for > the same exhibits. However my recollection is that John Cardinal has > suggested using jpgs for Second Site. Is this essential and what problems > might I have if I try to use bmps? Should I just scan as jpgs to start with > and forget the bmps? > > > > To put this into context the Second Site output I am working towards will > be > for around 6,000 people (all descendants of 1 couple) and the exhibits will > probably be around the same number. > > > > Any thoughts and advice would be appreciated > > > > Ann > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Ann, You said: > I understand that many TMG users create different formats in different > folders but I'm trying to avoid, or at least minimise, multiple formats for the > same exhibits. Others posted responses why they use "multiple formats for the same exhibits" as noted in your original post. For example, as others posted, I save the original scan in highres, lossless TIF format for the purpose to go back to later on and a second edited copy. Others noted that they create further copies for use for TMG and SS. Not said, but worth explaining a bit further, is that copies for TMG and SS may be two separate images, because there is an option to use an alternative SS images folder... if you choose to do so. For general printing purposes (withour getting to deep in the weeds) for printing "one to one" size, that an image of 220 - 300 dpi works well and for website, general monitor viewing than an image of approx. 95 dpi works well. So, hopefully, you see that if you save images as TMG exhibits where they may be printed (or not?) you may consider saving a copy in TMG Exhibits as 220-300 dpi (or for sending out to relatives that may want to "print." On the other hand, a website (on internet or CD/DVD) works well with lower dpi (so, for 6,000 exhibits, saving huge storage requirements) 95 dpi. So, for an example of the above use for TMG and SS, I have an original "TIF" scan (large size) and another edited "TIF" size copy. Then, I make a copy of the edited "TIF" for TMG as a "jpg" downsized to 300 dpi. Then, I put a copy in SS alternative image folder and downsize it to 95 dpi. For a real-life example of above, one of my TMG death certificate exhibits is 4.3 MB and the SS version is 220 KB. The difference when doing the math is that the SS version is approx. 20 times smaller. Where you mentioned having 6,000 exhibits, there is an obvious advantage in using in your words, " different formats in different folders. Tom M. > -----Original Message----- > From: tmg-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:tmg-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Ann Carson via > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:56 PM > To: TMG@rootsweb.com > Subject: [TMG] TMG and Second Site - bmp versus jpg > > Hello all > > > > I'm scanning all the certificates and documents I obtained in the UK recently > on a research trip and am wondering (again, still .) about the pros and cons > of bmp versus jpg for TMG and Second Site. > > > > All my exhibits are external. > > > > Is there any downside to using bmps as TMG exhibits? (I have over 16,000 > exhibits at the moment and growing fast) > > > > I understand that many TMG users create different formats in different > folders but I'm trying to avoid, or at least minimise, multiple formats for the > same exhibits. However my recollection is that John Cardinal has suggested > using jpgs for Second Site. Is this essential and what problems might I have > if I try to use bmps? Should I just scan as jpgs to start with and forget the > bmps? > > > > To put this into context the Second Site output I am working towards will > be for around 6,000 people (all descendants of 1 couple) and the exhibits > will probably be around the same number. > > > > Any thoughts and advice would be appreciated > > > > Ann > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

At 11:56 PM 6/30/2015, Ann Carson via wrote: >I'm scanning all the certificates and documents I obtained in the UK >recently on a research trip and am wondering (again, still .) about the pros >and cons of bmp versus jpg for TMG and Second Site. > <SNIP> JPEG is a lossy format. It was designed for photographic images where some loss in precise detail would be masked by the brain and optical system. To put it in very rough perspective: JPEG is the computer storage equivalent of the Impressionist School in counter to the Realist School. In return for the loss of fine detail, JPEG produces smaller files which can be transferred faster over the Internet. Currently, there are three common formats for Internet images: JPEG for small files of photographic subjects (continuous variation in shading, etc.); Compuserve GIF (limited color palette -- 256 distinct colors can be defined for a GIF file; GIF files are useful for drawings in which only a few colors are used and no shading is needed; within that limit, no details are lost); PNG (created back when GIF was laden down with an onerous Compuserve license; designed to be "the" network graphics format as could handle full-color photos yet retain all details). Some special cases may have SVG (a vector drawing format). BMP doesn't even come into consideration -- among other things, the name means different things to different people (Amiga IFF images were normally ILBM -> InterLeaved BitMap; UNIX world originally used BitMap to mean a single bit-depth [B/W] image often used to define masks for windows. For long term storage of images which may need editing at some point the common recommendation is to use TIFF formats (there are variations, some compressed, some not). For presentation on-line, one then batch converts the TIFF files into JPEG. I tend to keep my masters in PhotoShop PSD --> with the knowledge that I have at least one computer on which I could batch convert to TIFF should I suddenly learn that PhotoShop and PSD will become extinct. -- bieber.genealogy@earthlink.net Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/