Even working file sizes arent really that meaningful in terms of Absolute image quality because Of up-rez processing, bayer interpolations, 8 bit vs 16 bit gray/color channel scales etc. In other words, not all "X" megabyte size opened files are created equal! jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg What your common sense says is incommunicable. Compressed size isn't file size if you're trying to tell someone what size file you require to make a print. It's only relevant to your hard drive requirements. The size of the file when it's open in PhotoShop is file size. If you compressed it as a jpeg, it would be yet a different size. There's no standard when compression sizes are cited. Working file size is the only reference that is meaningful. Paul On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Bob Shell wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of >> what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense dictates >> that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The >> compressed size is totally irrelevant. > > Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. > > Bob > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
