Re: Macro and High res woes
 

JK <JK9821@netcape.net> writes:

>> The ability to go manual in as many aspects as possible.
>> The ability to store and transfer uncompressed images.

>Not that many people shoot uncompressed on consumer level cameras.
>The quality difference is hardly noticeable compared with shooting
>at low compression(SHG?), yet shooting uncompressed yeilds
>files that are much larger, and the much lower number of images
>per flash card can be very annoying.

That's true for cameras where the "uncompressed" output format is TIFF.
The files are quite large, yet they're still only 8 bits per colour, and
all you avoid is the JPEG compression artifacts - which may be nearly
invisible.

But cameras with a RAW output format compare considerably better. The
RAW output may be only 50% larger than the best quality JPEG, because
only one colour is stored at each pixel. The data is usually 10 or 12
bits, not 8. And decisions about white balance, contrast, and
sharpening can be deferred to when the images are processed. There's
also some more exposure latitude for salvaging bad exposures.

There are people using cameras like the Canon G series who shoot in raw
pretty much all the time.

Dave

Re: Macro and High res woes
 

davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote:

> There are people using cameras like the Canon G series who shoot in raw
> pretty much all the time.

Same with my Oly 5050 except in the Winter, then it's too cold to shoot
in the raw.

--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA