Bob, Your in-depth answer does it for me. I'll archive it and make it a "frequent study." Thanks!
Jack --- Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jack,I don't know much about 20x30 prints.A jpeg of 2000x3000 pixels > and a RAW shot of 2000x3000 pixels have thesame number of pixels in > the end, 6 million. Each one of these pixelshas a Red color > attributed to it and each color code (R,G, or B?)takes up a bite. > Pretty quickly you can see that you are going toneed a lot more than > 6 million bites to store a 2000x3000 picture.So no matter how you > store the original 6 meg camera's sensor output,you are gonna make > some serious compromises. For me, most of thepictures I've taken as > highest quality jpegs on the *ist DS have beenin the 1.5 megabite > size range. (A maple tree in fall with fullcolors will be more as > the colors vary from pixel to pixel a lot morethan a shot with a > broad expanse of sky.)You can look at these pictures on your monitor > at full resolution andsee the pixels that define the edges of things. > I suspect that theedges in a 6 megabite RAW file and a 6 megabite > jpeg would be verysimilar. The question really c! > omes down to how much can that image becompressed before losing > important detail. I can't really answer thatfor you as I have no > experience with 20x30's.Regards, Bob S. > On 11/28/05, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> 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>> > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
