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

Reply via email to