On 14 Nov 2004 at 15:59, Don Sanderson wrote: > Thanks, I still wonder why a jpeg with no detail would > take more space than a detailed one.
Your example file sized are what I would expect (All at 150th/f:5.6 in weak daylight) 1.) Shot with lenscap on = 12,244KB 2.) Detailed shot of dried flowers = 12,875KB 3.) Shot of plain white wall = 12,572KB > Bloated files.........hmmm.... > I wonder.....is Pentax related to Micros***...........NAH! ;-) The worst component of which are 4 bits of padding per pixel, it's completely redundant and adds around 3MB to the file size, it seems to have been an easy hurdle to jump for most other manufacturers. Like Bill mentioned, I too hope that DNG is finally adopted as an industry wide defacto standard for RAW files, it's well thought out. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
