I'll work on being "meaningful." In the meantime I'd love to feel content with an answer to what I though was an embarrassingly basic question: Will a 1.5mb or 1.5mp jpeg produce as sharp a 20x30 print as a 6.0mb or 6.0mp RAW capture? My guess is that based on mb, no. Re-opening a seriously compressed jpeg should be sparingly done to avoid artifacts? B'lieve that's what I heard and have experienced.
Jack --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28 Nov 2005 at 18:13, Jack Davis wrote: > > > How about my question? > > Rather than retype it here (with one finger), suggest you just > re-read > > it. > > (the initiating point that caused the question to be so stated, was > one > > made wherein I could save on CD storage if they were stored as > 1.5mp > > jpegs rather than in RAW.) > > I simply question the end product produced from the smaller file. > > All I read was 1.5 meg which I assumed to be 1.5MB(ytes) not > 1.5MP(ixels) which > are of course two independent and oft misinterpreted measures. > Everyone has to > be arguing about the same thing for it to be a meaningful discourse > :-) > > > > > 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 > > __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
