>Tom, > >I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between >the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation. The bigger problem that I >see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit. So you >are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and >Tiff. I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits >by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right >out of the camera are probably not worth the bother. Tiff is giving >you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg. >In some ways, the worst of both worlds. > >Thoughts? > >-- >Bruce
Of course you're correct regarding the 8 and 12 bit. To tell the truth though, I haven't perceived a visual difference in image quality when converting a 16(12)-bit image to 8-bit for saving as a .jpg. I was always pretty satisfied with my 8-bit Minolta Dimage Scan Dual with transparency film. The 16-bit IV version of the scanner is better, however. BTW, I am shooting raw. JPG is doing more than compressing a 12-bit image to 8-bit. It's losing other image data, as well (which of course you know). I readily accept that this loss may, in most if not all cases, be imperceptible, just as the loss of the 4 bits may not be readily visible. It seems akin to having a duplicate transparency made. The duplicate will never be as good as the original, though it may not be readily apparent except under very excting scrutiny. As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a splitting of hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. The same can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the 4 bits, assuming a 12-bit sensor. A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, projectors. viewers, and albums. :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
