Category talk:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Category reasoning[edit]

Was there a discussion about creating this category? I see a lot of TIFF files having existing categories replaced with this category. The reason I ask is: The TIFF files are, in theory, the more original ones, yet it seems to be that the JPEGs retain the categories. (On the other hand, the JPEGs are easier for the servers to thumbnail, I suppose.) I wouldn't want the categorization to go very far and then have a discussion come up, in which users think that the TIFF files should have categories instead, or something like that. --Closeapple (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TIF format is an old format, uncompressed. The files are enormous, I prefer to use JPEG format. BTW, the original category was much older (Category:NARA TIF images with catagorized JPGs). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The JPEG images quality is better/sharper than the TIF images. This category helps relieve an image's topic/location categories from having a double load of the same images, and the dilution from that repetition.—Look2See1 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The JPEGs are sharper than the TIFFs? TIFFs are supposed to be lossless data compression. What did NARA do to the TIFFs to make them worse than the JPEGs, and why do the TIFFs exist if the (lossy) JPEGs are sharper? Or did you mean only that the Wikimedia servers create sharper reductions of JPEGs than of TIFFs? --Closeapple (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The bigger problem are the duplicates crowding the directories. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The "Wikimedia servers create sharper reductions of JPEGs than of TIFFs" on the various equipment I view them on. The TIFFs are not lost, on the JPEG page one can click on the TIFF thumbnail midway down, and open that file. Is that a problem? I agree that "the duplicates crowding the directories" is the paramount problem, which this category is addressing.—Look2See1 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I mostly wanted to make sure it was at least discussed; it seemed odd to make an exception to the "categorize everything" way of Commons, unless it was discussed, since it would be better to have useless things as duplicates than to have useful things missing. I guess it's discussed now. ;-) Now I also understand why JPEG was the format chosen to stay categorized. --Closeapple (talk)