I think it is scientific, with same JPEG compression level the more detail
the larger file size. I knew this some time ago and was looking at the file
size for quick judgement of the OM lens tests I did with E-3. But I just
post test images for the visible difference, it is easier to judge how good
or bad the lenses are.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt"
> Interesting results even though not "scientific". :-)
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> iwert bernakiewicz wrote:
>> They did,
>>
>> 35 shift f11: 8 MB
>> 35 shift f8: 7,7 MB
>> 21 f8, f11, f16: 7,6 MB (but sharper than 28mm...)
>> 28 f8, f11: 7,6 MB
>> 28 f5.6: 7,2 MB
>> 21 f5.6: 7,1 MB
>> 21 f3.5: 7 MB
>> 28 f4: 6,9 MB
>> 28 f2: 6,8 MB
>>
>> Iwert
>>
>> (I didn't take an image @ 3200 asa to compare fil size :)
>>
>> 2010/3/22 Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> How about posting your JPEG sizes for these tests to see if the size
>>> differentials agree as they did before.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|