Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-25 Thread John Francis
> > My only complaint is that the 12 bit data is padded to 16 bit. This makes > the raw file bigger than it needs to be; they are over 12MB, where they > should only need to be 9MB or so. By my reading of it, the TIFF spec doesn't allow two 12-bit quantities to be packed into three bytes. So it

Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-25 Thread Rob Studdert
On 26 Sep 2003 at 0:12, Martin Albrecht wrote: > Hello, > > is it possible that Pentax uses 16 bit because of the > new multi exposure feature? > To sum up the 12 bit data without loosing Information, > you need more then 12 bits. > If yes, it could be possible to reduce noise > with multi exposu

Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-25 Thread Martin Albrecht
Hello, is it possible that Pentax uses 16 bit because of the new multi exposure feature? To sum up the 12 bit data without loosing Information, you need more then 12 bits. If yes, it could be possible to reduce noise with multi exposures on static subjects, this is the same process which is used w

Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-25 Thread Mark Roberts
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>they're 6 megs. When converted to 8 bit tiff, they're 18 megs. >> >>I thought a raw file was a sensor dump, and the size of the file >>should correlate with the size of the sensor? > >It should: 12 bits (1.5 bytes) per pi

Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-25 Thread Mark Roberts
"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >My only complaint is that the 12 bit data is padded to 16 >> bit. This makes >> >the raw file bigger than it needs to be; they

RE: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-25 Thread tom
> -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >My only complaint is that the 12 bit data is padded to 16 > bit. This makes > >the raw file bigger than it needs to be; they are over > 12MB, where they > >should only

Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-25 Thread Mark Roberts
"Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My only complaint is that the 12 bit data is padded to 16 bit. This makes >the raw file bigger than it needs to be; they are over 12MB, where they >should only need to be 9MB or so. This reduces storage on CF, and slows >write times, seemingly unnecesa

Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-24 Thread Peter Loveday
> er but did it take a nice shot? But of course - yet another wonderful photo of the inside of a camera store. It's amazing how many of those seem to accumulate over the years. :) Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software

Re: Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-24 Thread Cotty
On 24/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Had a play with a *istD in a local camera store today. I'd have to say I >was impressed. > >I took along my CF card to grab some shots, and took a few RAW files to have >a peek at. For anyone who is interested in technical details, these are in >fact TIF

Pentax RAW file format

2003-09-24 Thread Peter Loveday
Had a play with a *istD in a local camera store today. I'd have to say I was impressed. I took along my CF card to grab some shots, and took a few RAW files to have a peek at. For anyone who is interested in technical details, these are in fact TIFF files with a .PEF extension. Most TIFF loadin