Andrew Wiese wrote:
> In addition to what Moose wrote (part II of which is fundamentally important
> stuff for really understanding digital, in my view), two things come to my
> mind, one, TIFF generally takes up more space than RAW, even using the
> lossless compression I'm familiar with
Lossless compression of linear image data is quite a different thing. It
has to assume, for example that all 128 bits in the top nibble are
significant, as it knows nothing about the resolution of the source. So
it is bound to take up more storage space than nonlinear remapping based
on knowledge of the source data.
I have no idea how JPEG compression works inside. For all I know, it
uses a nonlinear, base two, mapping and the quality levels are setting
the number of steps per stop. That's how I would have done it, but I
know there are folks cleverer than I out there.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|