Considerate of you to let me know. Thanks,
Jack --- Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jack,Just looked at some files from Thanksgiving day.2.5 to 3.5 meg > jpegs each.My 1.5 meg jpegs are after saving a bit smaller than the > originals.Sorry for the distorted facts.Bob > On 11/29/05, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> 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 > ex! > panse 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 > quest > ion?> > >> > 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>> > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
