Of course not. But they're far more meaningful than a compressed storage size.
On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:21 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
