Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > How Do I Know What Bits per Pixel my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Has

Reply
Thread Tools

How Do I Know What Bits per Pixel my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Has

 
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2007
"Davy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>http://www.callnetuk.com/home/davystokes/photos.htm
>- click on the hyperlink at the top of the page


Nice pictures. If you typically do that sort of
work with an FZ8... have you ever considered spending
some real money and getting a real camera???

It does appear that a top notch camera would have
benefits for you.

Anyway, the first two things I noticed, were that there
is no thumbnail image embedded in the RAW file, and that
there is a significant amount *less* information than in
a JPG image from an FZ8 that I downloaded somewhere.
Not just stuff that relates only to in camera processing
either. (The JPG images you have are typical of
anything processed with an editor in that they have been
stripped of almost everything the camera had, and have
almost no useful other than the image size.)

Here is a dump from /exiftool/ that shows everything it
found:

ExifTool Version Number : 6.96
File Name : P1000195.RAW
Directory : .
File Size : 11 MB
File Modification Date/Time : 2007:10:03 08:47:07
File Type : RAW
MIME Type : image/x-raw
Panasonic Raw Version : 0202
Sensor Width : 3130
Sensor Height : 2319
Sensor Top Border : 7
Sensor Left Border : 15
Image Height : 2311
Image Width : 3087
ISO : 100
WB Red Level : 492
WB Green Level : 263
WB Blue Level : 434
Make : Panasonic
Camera Model Name : DMC-FZ8
Strip Offsets : 1536
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
Rows Per Strip : 2319
Strip Byte Counts : 11613552
Exposure Time : 1/125
F Number : 4.0
Exposure Program : Program AE
Exif Version : 0220
Date/Time Original : 2007:09:20 15:45:33
Create Date : 2007:09:20 15:45:33
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 2.8
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Flash : Off
Focal Length : 72.0mm
File Source : Digital Camera
Aperture : 4.0
Flash : Off
Image Size : 3087x2311
Shutter Speed : 1/125
Blue Balance : 1.65019
Focal Length : 72.0mm
Light Value : 11.0
Red Balance : 1.870722

Here is the EXIF data dumped from a JPEG image
downloaded somewhere. There are more than twice as many
items in this list compared to the above. I'm
suspecting this is from a later version of the camera,
but it could be that the JPEG formatted file simply has
more.

ExifTool Version Number : 6.96
File Name : nightshot.jpg
Directory : .
File Size : 3 MB
File Modification Date/Time : 2007:10:03 02:48:45
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Make : Panasonic
Camera Model Name : DMC-FZ8
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : Ver.1.0
Modify Date : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Co-sited
Exposure Time : 4
F Number : 3.6
Exposure Program : Shutter speed priority AE
ISO : 100
Exif Version : 0221
Date/Time Original : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
Create Date : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
Components Configuration : YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 2.8
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Light Source : Unknown (0)
Flash : Off
Focal Length : 21.6mm
Image Quality : High
Firmware Version : 0.1.0.2
White Balance : Auto
Focus Mode : Auto
AF Mode : 1-area (high speed)
Image Stabilization : Off
Macro Mode : Off
Shooting Mode : Shutter Priority
Audio : No
Data Dump : (Binary data 6152 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Flash Bias : 0
Internal Serial Number : (S02) 2007:02:13 no. 0713
Panasonic Exif Version : 0220
Color Effect : Off
Time Since Power On : 00:02:55.11
Burst Mode : Off
Sequence Number : 0
Noise Reduction : Standard
Self Timer : 2s
Rotation : Horizontal (normal)
Color Mode : Normal
Optical Zoom Mode : Standard
Conversion Lens : Off
Travel Day : n/a
World Time Location : Home
Program ISO : 100
WB Adjust AB : 0
WB Adjust GM : 0
Maker Note Version : 0101
Scene Mode : Off
WB Red Level : 1291
WB Green Level : 1054
WB Blue Level : 2795
Baby Age : (not set)
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
Exif Image Width : 3072
Exif Image Length : 2304
Interoperability Index : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version : 0100
Sensing Method : One-chip color area
File Source : Digital Camera
Scene Type : Directly photographed
Custom Rendered : Normal
Exposure Mode : Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio : 0
Focal Length In 35mm Format : 130mm
Scene Capture Type : Standard
Gain Control : None
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset : 8096
Thumbnail Length : 4820
Image Width : 3072
Image Height : 2304
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)
Aperture : 3.6
Blue Balance : 2.651803
Image Size : 3072x2304
Red Balance : 1.224858
Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent : 6.0
Shutter Speed : 4
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 4820 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Circle Of Confusion : 0.005 mm
Focal Length : 21.6mm (35mm equivalent: 130.0mm)
Hyperfocal Distance : 25.96 m
Light Value : 1.7

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Davy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2007
Floyd,

thanks for the kind words. Would a 'real' camera be one with
interchangeable lenses? I did all that with film cameras in the 80s and 90s
and don't think I can go back to carry camera tote bags full of
interchangeable lenses!

Also thanks for reading the exif data for my photo; pity it did not contain
the information needed. But I think that since the file sizes are
commensurate with the sensor providing linear 12 bit pixel data then I have
confidence in that figure.

This whole post has got a lot more technical than I expected. I changed to
using raw just two weeks ago so the learning curve has been very steep - but
worth it.

My motive for asking how many bits per pixel my camera generates was that I
was trying to decide what bit depth my workflow should be. So for instance
if my camera is generating 12 bit pixels, then 8 bit per channel software
should be adaquate ?? Archiving the files as ordinary TIFF (8 bit) should
be adaquate?

About a week ago I asked for recommendations for software that would support
a Windows 2000 based workflow. I did not get any replies but since then I
have developed the following workflow. Does it seem sensible?

In SilkyPix
Browse RAWs in thumbnail view with outline display showing
Right click unwanted images, set delete mark, use file/delete marked
when finished
Tweak
Use Siklypix defaults - they seem to be very good
. Use 'camera setting' for automatic adjust of
colour balance
Max sharpen on drop down menu (is quite
conservative)
Reserve mark those images requiring archive quality. - Develop RAW to
TIFF (8 with Exif) using AdobeRGB colour space
In Photoshop Elements 2
Read TIFFs
.. crop
using levels tool adjust max light and dark and mid
ones - but not discarding any data at extremes
adjust colour balance - rarely needed cos Silkypix does it
well
if really needed then enhance saturation
touch up/remove unwanted items, blemishes, smooth skin,
etc
add more sharpening if Silkypix did not do enough
Reduce noise
Convert to web, print etc

Delete RAW and the two other files created by the camera for each image.

In the above workflow I have not found a need for using DNG from the Adobe
DNG generator. Does the workflow seem reasonable?

cheers

Davy

"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Davy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.callnetuk.com/home/davystokes/photos.htm
> >- click on the hyperlink at the top of the page

>
> Nice pictures. If you typically do that sort of
> work with an FZ8... have you ever considered spending
> some real money and getting a real camera???
>
> It does appear that a top notch camera would have
> benefits for you.
>
> Anyway, the first two things I noticed, were that there
> is no thumbnail image embedded in the RAW file, and that
> there is a significant amount *less* information than in
> a JPG image from an FZ8 that I downloaded somewhere.
> Not just stuff that relates only to in camera processing
> either. (The JPG images you have are typical of
> anything processed with an editor in that they have been
> stripped of almost everything the camera had, and have
> almost no useful other than the image size.)
>
> Here is a dump from /exiftool/ that shows everything it
> found:
>
> ExifTool Version Number : 6.96
> File Name : P1000195.RAW
> Directory : .
> File Size : 11 MB
> File Modification Date/Time : 2007:10:03 08:47:07
> File Type : RAW
> MIME Type : image/x-raw
> Panasonic Raw Version : 0202
> Sensor Width : 3130
> Sensor Height : 2319
> Sensor Top Border : 7
> Sensor Left Border : 15
> Image Height : 2311
> Image Width : 3087
> ISO : 100
> WB Red Level : 492
> WB Green Level : 263
> WB Blue Level : 434
> Make : Panasonic
> Camera Model Name : DMC-FZ8
> Strip Offsets : 1536
> Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
> Rows Per Strip : 2319
> Strip Byte Counts : 11613552
> Exposure Time : 1/125
> F Number : 4.0
> Exposure Program : Program AE
> Exif Version : 0220
> Date/Time Original : 2007:09:20 15:45:33
> Create Date : 2007:09:20 15:45:33
> Exposure Compensation : 0
> Max Aperture Value : 2.8
> Metering Mode : Multi-segment
> Flash : Off
> Focal Length : 72.0mm
> File Source : Digital Camera
> Aperture : 4.0
> Flash : Off
> Image Size : 3087x2311
> Shutter Speed : 1/125
> Blue Balance : 1.65019
> Focal Length : 72.0mm
> Light Value : 11.0
> Red Balance : 1.870722
>
> Here is the EXIF data dumped from a JPEG image
> downloaded somewhere. There are more than twice as many
> items in this list compared to the above. I'm
> suspecting this is from a later version of the camera,
> but it could be that the JPEG formatted file simply has
> more.
>
> ExifTool Version Number : 6.96
> File Name : nightshot.jpg
> Directory : .
> File Size : 3 MB
> File Modification Date/Time : 2007:10:03 02:48:45
> File Type : JPEG
> MIME Type : image/jpeg
> Make : Panasonic
> Camera Model Name : DMC-FZ8
> Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
> X Resolution : 72
> Y Resolution : 72
> Resolution Unit : inches
> Software : Ver.1.0
> Modify Date : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
> Y Cb Cr Positioning : Co-sited
> Exposure Time : 4
> F Number : 3.6
> Exposure Program : Shutter speed priority AE
> ISO : 100
> Exif Version : 0221
> Date/Time Original : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
> Create Date : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
> Components Configuration : YCbCr
> Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
> Exposure Compensation : 0
> Max Aperture Value : 2.8
> Metering Mode : Multi-segment
> Light Source : Unknown (0)
> Flash : Off
> Focal Length : 21.6mm
> Image Quality : High
> Firmware Version : 0.1.0.2
> White Balance : Auto
> Focus Mode : Auto
> AF Mode : 1-area (high speed)
> Image Stabilization : Off
> Macro Mode : Off
> Shooting Mode : Shutter Priority
> Audio : No
> Data Dump : (Binary data 6152 bytes, use -b option

to extract)
> Flash Bias : 0
> Internal Serial Number : (S02) 2007:02:13 no. 0713
> Panasonic Exif Version : 0220
> Color Effect : Off
> Time Since Power On : 00:02:55.11
> Burst Mode : Off
> Sequence Number : 0
> Noise Reduction : Standard
> Self Timer : 2s
> Rotation : Horizontal (normal)
> Color Mode : Normal
> Optical Zoom Mode : Standard
> Conversion Lens : Off
> Travel Day : n/a
> World Time Location : Home
> Program ISO : 100
> WB Adjust AB : 0
> WB Adjust GM : 0
> Maker Note Version : 0101
> Scene Mode : Off
> WB Red Level : 1291
> WB Green Level : 1054
> WB Blue Level : 2795
> Baby Age : (not set)
> Flashpix Version : 0100
> Color Space : sRGB
> Exif Image Width : 3072
> Exif Image Length : 2304
> Interoperability Index : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
> Interoperability Version : 0100
> Sensing Method : One-chip color area
> File Source : Digital Camera
> Scene Type : Directly photographed
> Custom Rendered : Normal
> Exposure Mode : Auto
> Digital Zoom Ratio : 0
> Focal Length In 35mm Format : 130mm
> Scene Capture Type : Standard
> Gain Control : None
> Contrast : Normal
> Saturation : Normal
> Sharpness : Normal
> Compression : JPEG (old-style)
> Thumbnail Offset : 8096
> Thumbnail Length : 4820
> Image Width : 3072
> Image Height : 2304
> Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
> Bits Per Sample : 8
> Color Components : 3
> Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)
> Aperture : 3.6
> Blue Balance : 2.651803
> Image Size : 3072x2304
> Red Balance : 1.224858
> Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent : 6.0
> Shutter Speed : 4
> Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 4820 bytes, use -b option

to extract)
> Circle Of Confusion : 0.005 mm
> Focal Length : 21.6mm (35mm equivalent: 130.0mm)
> Hyperfocal Distance : 25.96 m
> Light Value : 1.7
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ChesterCharlston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2007
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:18:49 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>Nice pictures. If you typically do that sort of
>work with an FZ8... have you ever considered spending
>some real money and getting a real camera???
>


Seems to me he already has a real camera. If you typically do this kind of
usenet posting have you ever considered getting a real brain? Or at least some
real photography experience.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2007
"Davy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Floyd,
>
>thanks for the kind words. Would a 'real' camera be one with
>interchangeable lenses? I did all that with film cameras in the 80s and 90s
>and don't think I can go back to carry camera tote bags full of
>interchangeable lenses!




Actually there are loads of "real" cameras that are not
DSLR's. I'm not a camera store clerk though (and some
folks who post here appparently are), and can't really
provide much perspective on good Point & Shoot cameras
(or for that matter on DSLR's either).

>Also thanks for reading the exif data for my photo; pity it did not contain
>the information needed. But I think that since the file sizes are
>commensurate with the sensor providing linear 12 bit pixel data then I have
>confidence in that figure.
>
>This whole post has got a lot more technical than I expected. I changed to
>using raw just two weeks ago so the learning curve has been very steep - but
>worth it.


Heh, there is *no* end to it either, or so it seems!
With film is was simply all of your time and all of your
money. It doesn't take much money these days, but it is
still time consuming.

>My motive for asking how many bits per pixel my camera generates was that I
>was trying to decide what bit depth my workflow should be. So for instance
>if my camera is generating 12 bit pixels, then 8 bit per channel software
>should be adaquate ??


Here we had this nice pleasant thread going, and now
you've gone and opened the Pandora's Box. No matter
what is said in response to that question, somebody will
be adamant that it is wrong; both sides will have
logical arguments too...

For _most_ things, editing with an 8 bit per channel
editor is sufficient. For some it is not. If you tend
to dicker with gradients, 8 bits will not be enough.
For example, you seem to like landscapes, and might play
with the the light variations in the sky. If you try
adjusting contrast ranges in broad expanses of sky using
an 8 bit editor, you'll get banding if you go too far.
With a 16 bit editor the gradients can be expanded to
virtually any reasonable degree without posterization.

Hence you probably want to use a 16 bit work flow if it
is easy (all other things being equal, choose 16 bit
software over 8 bit software). If you don't like the 16
bit software, don't use it all the time but do have it
available for when it makes a difference.

(I work on a Linux platform, and use The GIMP, which is
8 bit, for editing almost everything. I do have a
significantly less suitable editor called /cinepaint/,
just so that I can do some things in 16 bits if needed.)

>Archiving the files as ordinary TIFF (8 bit) should
>be adaquate?


I would not do that under any circumstance. *Never*
delete the RAW file for any image that is useful.

Worse yet, you probably want at least two copies of
every RAW file, and if possible have them on two
different computers located in two different physical
locations.

If you want to convert it to an image file and archive
that, it definitely should be 16 bits per channel. In
fact it makes some sense to do the initial conversion
from the RAW data to a 16 bit format, and then archive
both. The 16 bit format would then be the starting point
for whatever editing is done. You could easily end up
with multiple 16 bit conversions, each different.

A better way, however, is to use a conversion program
which will save it's entire configuration for each
image. Then, rather than archiving individual huge 16
bit image files, only a very small configuration file is
saved, and that is used to regenerate that 16 bit image
file at any time.

>About a week ago I asked for recommendations for software that would support
>a Windows 2000 based workflow. I did not get any replies but since then I
>have developed the following workflow. Does it seem sensible?


I use Linux, so I can't really be of much use in regard
to a Windows workflow.

However... Given that your camera produces a RAW file that
has no embedded JPEG image, and will only produce either RAW
or JPEG, the way I would want to deal with RAW would be something
like this:

1) Download RAW files to the computer.

A. Use a batch process to generate a "preview"
JPEG image using default settings. These
do not need to be high quality conversions,
but should be full sized and "good enough".

B. Review the JPEG's, deleting obvious culls.

C. Using a scripted batch process (to avoid
mistakes), delete any RAW file matching a
deleted JPEG.

D. Copy all RAW files to archive(s).

E. Delete RAW files from Camera or memory card.

2) Again review the JPEG previews and process
selected images.

A. Individually do a high quality conversion
to a suitable intermediate image format.

1. This file actually never needs to be
saved to disk at all, it it can be
fed directly to an editor, while the
configuration file is saved. That
would be typical operation if the
conversion is a plugin module for the
editor of choice.

2. Save and archive the configuration
file which allows this conversion to
be repeated again.

B. Edit as desired, saving either intermediate
files or configuration files, as needed.

C. Archive work files as needed.

3) Use scripted batch processing to apply whatever
"standard" decorations you choose to for your
work. For example, a signature/copyright notice,
borders, or whatever...

4) Archive final product files as needed.

>In SilkyPix
> Browse RAWs in thumbnail view with outline display showing


I want to look at each image in full screen size to make
decisions on actually deleting.

> Right click unwanted images, set delete mark, use file/delete marked
>when finished
> Tweak
> Use Siklypix defaults - they seem to be very good
> . Use 'camera setting' for automatic adjust of
>colour balance


Color balance is quirky. Often a camera does pretty
good, so using that as your default is probably good.
Just be aware that now and then the camera will be
totally wrong, or that the software might give a better
balance, or that neither will and you will need to
manually set it.

> Max sharpen on drop down menu (is quite
>conservative)


Set sharpening to zero. Sharpening depends on the
display, and should be the last thing done before
printing or uploading to a webpage. It is individually
done per _useage_.

> Reserve mark those images requiring archive quality. - Develop RAW to
>TIFF (8 with Exif) using AdobeRGB colour space
>In Photoshop Elements 2
> Read TIFFs
>. crop
> using levels tool adjust max light and dark and mid
>ones - but not discarding any data at extremes
> adjust colour balance - rarely needed cos Silkypix does it
>well


If color balance needs adjustment, I'd go all the way
back to the RAW to image conversion, and do it there
(basically, start over).

> if really needed then enhance saturation
> touch up/remove unwanted items, blemishes, smooth skin,
>etc
> add more sharpening if Silkypix did not do enough
> Reduce noise


Do noise reduction *before* you do anything to sharpen
it. That includes applying Unsharp Mask techniques too.

> Convert to web, print etc
>
>Delete RAW and the two other files created by the camera for each image.


Don't do that. Archive the RAW files. Write them to
DVD's or buy a lot of really big disks.

For example you can get SATA to USB 2.0 adapters, and a
couple of 500 Gb disk drives, all relatively for a low
price. Write *everything* off to two different disks.

Then disconnect the disks between operations, and leave
them sitting, unpowered, on the shelf. If one of those
disks ever does die, *immediately* get another one and
make a second copy of everything.

>In the above workflow I have not found a need for using DNG from the Adobe
>DNG generator. Does the workflow seem reasonable?


I haven't got a clue as to why anyone would use DNG at this
point.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
allr1@webtv.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2007

(E-Mail Removed) (ChesterCharlston)
wrote:

" Seems to me he already has a real camera. If you typically do this
kind of usenet posting have you ever considered getting a real brain? Or
at least some real photography experience. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

His posting just goes to show that
Floyd L. D. is a 'real' A-hole. ((O))

 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:20:49 +0100, Davy wrote:

> Floyd,
>
> thanks for the kind words. Would a 'real' camera be one with
> interchangeable lenses? I did all that with film cameras in the 80s and 90s
> and don't think I can go back to carry camera tote bags full of
> interchangeable lenses!
>
> Also thanks for reading the exif data for my photo; pity it did not contain
> the information needed. But I think that since the file sizes are
> commensurate with the sensor providing linear 12 bit pixel data then I have
> confidence in that figure.
>
> This whole post has got a lot more technical than I expected. I changed to
> using raw just two weeks ago so the learning curve has been very steep - but
> worth it.
>
> My motive for asking how many bits per pixel my camera generates was that I
> was trying to decide what bit depth my workflow should be. So for instance
> if my camera is generating 12 bit pixels, then 8 bit per channel software
> should be adaquate ?? Archiving the files as ordinary TIFF (8 bit) should
> be adaquate?


I'm fairly new to this process too, but I archive my raw files. If
anything happens to the processed images, I can always go back to square
one. I backup all images to at least two different computers (the laptop I
carry on trips for the purpose of viewing images while we're gone, any my
big desktop where I do most processing), an external hard drive and
another copy to CD/DVD.

>
> About a week ago I asked for recommendations for software that would support
> a Windows 2000 based workflow. I did not get any replies but since then I
> have developed the following workflow. Does it seem sensible?


FWIW:
I find that reading the raw data into 'ufraw' allows me to make most of
the changes I need for color balance, exposure, curves, etc. - I save out
a jpeg. I then may make a few adjustments in GIMP before printing or
posting, and do other processing like panorama stitching.

>
> In SilkyPix
> Browse RAWs in thumbnail view with outline display showing
> Right click unwanted images, set delete mark, use file/delete marked
> when finished
> Tweak
> · Use Siklypix defaults - they seem to be very good
> . Use 'camera setting' for automatic adjust of
> colour balance
> · Max sharpen on drop down menu (is quite
> conservative)
> Reserve mark those images requiring archive quality. - Develop RAW to
> TIFF (8 with Exif) using AdobeRGB colour space
> In Photoshop Elements 2
> · Read TIFFs
> . crop
> · using levels tool adjust max light and dark and mid
> ones - but not discarding any data at extremes
> · adjust colour balance - rarely needed cos Silkypix does it
> well
> · if really needed then enhance saturation
> · touch up/remove unwanted items, blemishes, smooth skin,
> etc
> · add more sharpening if Silkypix did not do enough
> · Reduce noise
> · Convert to web, print etc
>
> Delete RAW and the two other files created by the camera for each image.
>
> In the above workflow I have not found a need for using DNG from the Adobe
> DNG generator. Does the workflow seem reasonable?
>
> cheers
>
> Davy
>
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Davy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >http://www.callnetuk.com/home/davystokes/photos.htm
>> >- click on the hyperlink at the top of the page

>>
>> Nice pictures. If you typically do that sort of
>> work with an FZ8... have you ever considered spending
>> some real money and getting a real camera???
>>
>> It does appear that a top notch camera would have
>> benefits for you.
>>
>> Anyway, the first two things I noticed, were that there
>> is no thumbnail image embedded in the RAW file, and that
>> there is a significant amount *less* information than in
>> a JPG image from an FZ8 that I downloaded somewhere.
>> Not just stuff that relates only to in camera processing
>> either. (The JPG images you have are typical of
>> anything processed with an editor in that they have been
>> stripped of almost everything the camera had, and have
>> almost no useful other than the image size.)
>>
>> Here is a dump from /exiftool/ that shows everything it
>> found:
>>
>> ExifTool Version Number : 6.96
>> File Name : P1000195.RAW
>> Directory : .
>> File Size : 11 MB
>> File Modification Date/Time : 2007:10:03 08:47:07
>> File Type : RAW
>> MIME Type : image/x-raw
>> Panasonic Raw Version : 0202
>> Sensor Width : 3130
>> Sensor Height : 2319
>> Sensor Top Border : 7
>> Sensor Left Border : 15
>> Image Height : 2311
>> Image Width : 3087
>> ISO : 100
>> WB Red Level : 492
>> WB Green Level : 263
>> WB Blue Level : 434
>> Make : Panasonic
>> Camera Model Name : DMC-FZ8
>> Strip Offsets : 1536
>> Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
>> Rows Per Strip : 2319
>> Strip Byte Counts : 11613552
>> Exposure Time : 1/125
>> F Number : 4.0
>> Exposure Program : Program AE
>> Exif Version : 0220
>> Date/Time Original : 2007:09:20 15:45:33
>> Create Date : 2007:09:20 15:45:33
>> Exposure Compensation : 0
>> Max Aperture Value : 2.8
>> Metering Mode : Multi-segment
>> Flash : Off
>> Focal Length : 72.0mm
>> File Source : Digital Camera
>> Aperture : 4.0
>> Flash : Off
>> Image Size : 3087x2311
>> Shutter Speed : 1/125
>> Blue Balance : 1.65019
>> Focal Length : 72.0mm
>> Light Value : 11.0
>> Red Balance : 1.870722
>>
>> Here is the EXIF data dumped from a JPEG image
>> downloaded somewhere. There are more than twice as many
>> items in this list compared to the above. I'm
>> suspecting this is from a later version of the camera,
>> but it could be that the JPEG formatted file simply has
>> more.
>>
>> ExifTool Version Number : 6.96
>> File Name : nightshot.jpg
>> Directory : .
>> File Size : 3 MB
>> File Modification Date/Time : 2007:10:03 02:48:45
>> File Type : JPEG
>> MIME Type : image/jpeg
>> Make : Panasonic
>> Camera Model Name : DMC-FZ8
>> Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
>> X Resolution : 72
>> Y Resolution : 72
>> Resolution Unit : inches
>> Software : Ver.1.0
>> Modify Date : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
>> Y Cb Cr Positioning : Co-sited
>> Exposure Time : 4
>> F Number : 3.6
>> Exposure Program : Shutter speed priority AE
>> ISO : 100
>> Exif Version : 0221
>> Date/Time Original : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
>> Create Date : 2007:05:31 21:50:04
>> Components Configuration : YCbCr
>> Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
>> Exposure Compensation : 0
>> Max Aperture Value : 2.8
>> Metering Mode : Multi-segment
>> Light Source : Unknown (0)
>> Flash : Off
>> Focal Length : 21.6mm
>> Image Quality : High
>> Firmware Version : 0.1.0.2
>> White Balance : Auto
>> Focus Mode : Auto
>> AF Mode : 1-area (high speed)
>> Image Stabilization : Off
>> Macro Mode : Off
>> Shooting Mode : Shutter Priority
>> Audio : No
>> Data Dump : (Binary data 6152 bytes, use -b option

> to extract)
>> Flash Bias : 0
>> Internal Serial Number : (S02) 2007:02:13 no. 0713
>> Panasonic Exif Version : 0220
>> Color Effect : Off
>> Time Since Power On : 00:02:55.11
>> Burst Mode : Off
>> Sequence Number : 0
>> Noise Reduction : Standard
>> Self Timer : 2s
>> Rotation : Horizontal (normal)
>> Color Mode : Normal
>> Optical Zoom Mode : Standard
>> Conversion Lens : Off
>> Travel Day : n/a
>> World Time Location : Home
>> Program ISO : 100
>> WB Adjust AB : 0
>> WB Adjust GM : 0
>> Maker Note Version : 0101
>> Scene Mode : Off
>> WB Red Level : 1291
>> WB Green Level : 1054
>> WB Blue Level : 2795
>> Baby Age : (not set)
>> Flashpix Version : 0100
>> Color Space : sRGB
>> Exif Image Width : 3072
>> Exif Image Length : 2304
>> Interoperability Index : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
>> Interoperability Version : 0100
>> Sensing Method : One-chip color area
>> File Source : Digital Camera
>> Scene Type : Directly photographed
>> Custom Rendered : Normal
>> Exposure Mode : Auto
>> Digital Zoom Ratio : 0
>> Focal Length In 35mm Format : 130mm
>> Scene Capture Type : Standard
>> Gain Control : None
>> Contrast : Normal
>> Saturation : Normal
>> Sharpness : Normal
>> Compression : JPEG (old-style)
>> Thumbnail Offset : 8096
>> Thumbnail Length : 4820
>> Image Width : 3072
>> Image Height : 2304
>> Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
>> Bits Per Sample : 8
>> Color Components : 3
>> Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)
>> Aperture : 3.6
>> Blue Balance : 2.651803
>> Image Size : 3072x2304
>> Red Balance : 1.224858
>> Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent : 6.0
>> Shutter Speed : 4
>> Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 4820 bytes, use -b option

> to extract)
>> Circle Of Confusion : 0.005 mm
>> Focal Length : 21.6mm (35mm equivalent: 130.0mm)
>> Hyperfocal Distance : 25.96 m
>> Light Value : 1.7
>>
>> --
>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Meyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
On Oct 3, 6:05 am, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> ... If you have perl on
> your machine, try finding /exiftool/, which is a set
> of perl scripts that can show/edit the data.
> ...


I think there's a version of ExifTool, available from the
same website, that doesn't require Perl. I've used it
successfully but I'm not certain it doesn't require Perl
because I have Perl on all my machines.

Alan

 
Reply With Quote
 
Davy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
Floyd,
thanks for taking the time for such a very full response. There is a lot to
chew on there so I will give it a go but don't expect an instant answer.
As per your recommendations:
The Panasonic DMC-FZ8 produces a 3Mb jpg in parallel with raw files. So I
will browse these cos they are much faster to view than raw files. I am in
the process of writing a scripted batch program to delete raw files which
were viewed as jpgs and deleted
I have ordered an external hard drive
I have obtained a data fire safe to keep it in

Off tomorrow to Exeter to see the old town, the cathedral and historic
harbour - very good photo opportunities. Will be able to try out the new
workflow on the results.

thanks, Davy

"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Davy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Floyd,
> >
> >thanks for the kind words. Would a 'real' camera be one with
> >interchangeable lenses? I did all that with film cameras in the 80s and

90s
> >and don't think I can go back to carry camera tote bags full of
> >interchangeable lenses!

>
>
>
> Actually there are loads of "real" cameras that are not
> DSLR's. I'm not a camera store clerk though (and some
> folks who post here appparently are), and can't really
> provide much perspective on good Point & Shoot cameras
> (or for that matter on DSLR's either).
>
> >Also thanks for reading the exif data for my photo; pity it did not

contain
> >the information needed. But I think that since the file sizes are
> >commensurate with the sensor providing linear 12 bit pixel data then I

have
> >confidence in that figure.
> >
> >This whole post has got a lot more technical than I expected. I changed

to
> >using raw just two weeks ago so the learning curve has been very steep -

but
> >worth it.

>
> Heh, there is *no* end to it either, or so it seems!
> With film is was simply all of your time and all of your
> money. It doesn't take much money these days, but it is
> still time consuming.
>
> >My motive for asking how many bits per pixel my camera generates was that

I
> >was trying to decide what bit depth my workflow should be. So for

instance
> >if my camera is generating 12 bit pixels, then 8 bit per channel software
> >should be adaquate ??

>
> Here we had this nice pleasant thread going, and now
> you've gone and opened the Pandora's Box. No matter
> what is said in response to that question, somebody will
> be adamant that it is wrong; both sides will have
> logical arguments too...
>
> For _most_ things, editing with an 8 bit per channel
> editor is sufficient. For some it is not. If you tend
> to dicker with gradients, 8 bits will not be enough.
> For example, you seem to like landscapes, and might play
> with the the light variations in the sky. If you try
> adjusting contrast ranges in broad expanses of sky using
> an 8 bit editor, you'll get banding if you go too far.
> With a 16 bit editor the gradients can be expanded to
> virtually any reasonable degree without posterization.
>
> Hence you probably want to use a 16 bit work flow if it
> is easy (all other things being equal, choose 16 bit
> software over 8 bit software). If you don't like the 16
> bit software, don't use it all the time but do have it
> available for when it makes a difference.
>
> (I work on a Linux platform, and use The GIMP, which is
> 8 bit, for editing almost everything. I do have a
> significantly less suitable editor called /cinepaint/,
> just so that I can do some things in 16 bits if needed.)
>
> >Archiving the files as ordinary TIFF (8 bit) should
> >be adaquate?

>
> I would not do that under any circumstance. *Never*
> delete the RAW file for any image that is useful.
>
> Worse yet, you probably want at least two copies of
> every RAW file, and if possible have them on two
> different computers located in two different physical
> locations.
>
> If you want to convert it to an image file and archive
> that, it definitely should be 16 bits per channel. In
> fact it makes some sense to do the initial conversion
> from the RAW data to a 16 bit format, and then archive
> both. The 16 bit format would then be the starting point
> for whatever editing is done. You could easily end up
> with multiple 16 bit conversions, each different.
>
> A better way, however, is to use a conversion program
> which will save it's entire configuration for each
> image. Then, rather than archiving individual huge 16
> bit image files, only a very small configuration file is
> saved, and that is used to regenerate that 16 bit image
> file at any time.
>
> >About a week ago I asked for recommendations for software that would

support
> >a Windows 2000 based workflow. I did not get any replies but since then

I
> >have developed the following workflow. Does it seem sensible?

>
> I use Linux, so I can't really be of much use in regard
> to a Windows workflow.
>
> However... Given that your camera produces a RAW file that
> has no embedded JPEG image, and will only produce either RAW
> or JPEG, the way I would want to deal with RAW would be something
> like this:
>
> 1) Download RAW files to the computer.
>
> A. Use a batch process to generate a "preview"
> JPEG image using default settings. These
> do not need to be high quality conversions,
> but should be full sized and "good enough".
>
> B. Review the JPEG's, deleting obvious culls.
>
> C. Using a scripted batch process (to avoid
> mistakes), delete any RAW file matching a
> deleted JPEG.
>
> D. Copy all RAW files to archive(s).
>
> E. Delete RAW files from Camera or memory card.
>
> 2) Again review the JPEG previews and process
> selected images.
>
> A. Individually do a high quality conversion
> to a suitable intermediate image format.
>
> 1. This file actually never needs to be
> saved to disk at all, it it can be
> fed directly to an editor, while the
> configuration file is saved. That
> would be typical operation if the
> conversion is a plugin module for the
> editor of choice.
>
> 2. Save and archive the configuration
> file which allows this conversion to
> be repeated again.
>
> B. Edit as desired, saving either intermediate
> files or configuration files, as needed.
>
> C. Archive work files as needed.
>
> 3) Use scripted batch processing to apply whatever
> "standard" decorations you choose to for your
> work. For example, a signature/copyright notice,
> borders, or whatever...
>
> 4) Archive final product files as needed.
>
> >In SilkyPix
> > Browse RAWs in thumbnail view with outline display showing

>
> I want to look at each image in full screen size to make
> decisions on actually deleting.
>
> > Right click unwanted images, set delete mark, use file/delete marked
> >when finished
> > Tweak
> > Use Siklypix defaults - they seem to be very

good
> > . Use 'camera setting' for automatic adjust of
> >colour balance

>
> Color balance is quirky. Often a camera does pretty
> good, so using that as your default is probably good.
> Just be aware that now and then the camera will be
> totally wrong, or that the software might give a better
> balance, or that neither will and you will need to
> manually set it.
>
> > Max sharpen on drop down menu (is quite
> >conservative)

>
> Set sharpening to zero. Sharpening depends on the
> display, and should be the last thing done before
> printing or uploading to a webpage. It is individually
> done per _useage_.
>
> > Reserve mark those images requiring archive quality. - Develop RAW to
> >TIFF (8 with Exif) using AdobeRGB colour space
> >In Photoshop Elements 2
> > Read TIFFs
> >. crop
> > using levels tool adjust max light and dark and mid
> >ones - but not discarding any data at extremes
> > adjust colour balance - rarely needed cos Silkypix does

it
> >well

>
> If color balance needs adjustment, I'd go all the way
> back to the RAW to image conversion, and do it there
> (basically, start over).
>
> > if really needed then enhance saturation
> > touch up/remove unwanted items, blemishes, smooth skin,
> >etc
> > add more sharpening if Silkypix did not do enough
> > Reduce noise

>
> Do noise reduction *before* you do anything to sharpen
> it. That includes applying Unsharp Mask techniques too.
>
> > Convert to web, print etc
> >
> >Delete RAW and the two other files created by the camera for each image.

>
> Don't do that. Archive the RAW files. Write them to
> DVD's or buy a lot of really big disks.
>
> For example you can get SATA to USB 2.0 adapters, and a
> couple of 500 Gb disk drives, all relatively for a low
> price. Write *everything* off to two different disks.
>
> Then disconnect the disks between operations, and leave
> them sitting, unpowered, on the shelf. If one of those
> disks ever does die, *immediately* get another one and
> make a second copy of everything.
>
> >In the above workflow I have not found a need for using DNG from the

Adobe
> >DNG generator. Does the workflow seem reasonable?

>
> I haven't got a clue as to why anyone would use DNG at this
> point.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)



 
Reply With Quote
 
Davy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007
Floyd,
thanks for taking the time for such a very full response. There is a lot to
chew on there so I will give it a go but don't expect an instant answer.
As per your recommendations:
- The Panasonic DMC-FZ8 produces a 1.7 Mb jpg in parallel with raw files. So
I
will browse these cos they are much faster to view than raw files.
- I have written a scripted batch program to delete raw files which
were viewed as jpgs and deleted
- I have ordered an external hard drive
- I have obtained a data fire safe to keep it in

Off tomorrow to Exeter to see the old town, the cathedral and historic
harbour - very good photo opportunities. Will be able to try out the new
workflow on the results.

thanks, Davy

"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Davy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Floyd,
> >
> >thanks for the kind words. Would a 'real' camera be one with
> >interchangeable lenses? I did all that with film cameras in the 80s and

90s
> >and don't think I can go back to carry camera tote bags full of
> >interchangeable lenses!

>
>
>
> Actually there are loads of "real" cameras that are not
> DSLR's. I'm not a camera store clerk though (and some
> folks who post here appparently are), and can't really
> provide much perspective on good Point & Shoot cameras
> (or for that matter on DSLR's either).
>
> >Also thanks for reading the exif data for my photo; pity it did not

contain
> >the information needed. But I think that since the file sizes are
> >commensurate with the sensor providing linear 12 bit pixel data then I

have
> >confidence in that figure.
> >
> >This whole post has got a lot more technical than I expected. I changed

to
> >using raw just two weeks ago so the learning curve has been very steep -

but
> >worth it.

>
> Heh, there is *no* end to it either, or so it seems!
> With film is was simply all of your time and all of your
> money. It doesn't take much money these days, but it is
> still time consuming.
>
> >My motive for asking how many bits per pixel my camera generates was that

I
> >was trying to decide what bit depth my workflow should be. So for

instance
> >if my camera is generating 12 bit pixels, then 8 bit per channel software
> >should be adaquate ??

>
> Here we had this nice pleasant thread going, and now
> you've gone and opened the Pandora's Box. No matter
> what is said in response to that question, somebody will
> be adamant that it is wrong; both sides will have
> logical arguments too...
>
> For _most_ things, editing with an 8 bit per channel
> editor is sufficient. For some it is not. If you tend
> to dicker with gradients, 8 bits will not be enough.
> For example, you seem to like landscapes, and might play
> with the the light variations in the sky. If you try
> adjusting contrast ranges in broad expanses of sky using
> an 8 bit editor, you'll get banding if you go too far.
> With a 16 bit editor the gradients can be expanded to
> virtually any reasonable degree without posterization.
>
> Hence you probably want to use a 16 bit work flow if it
> is easy (all other things being equal, choose 16 bit
> software over 8 bit software). If you don't like the 16
> bit software, don't use it all the time but do have it
> available for when it makes a difference.
>
> (I work on a Linux platform, and use The GIMP, which is
> 8 bit, for editing almost everything. I do have a
> significantly less suitable editor called /cinepaint/,
> just so that I can do some things in 16 bits if needed.)
>
> >Archiving the files as ordinary TIFF (8 bit) should
> >be adaquate?

>
> I would not do that under any circumstance. *Never*
> delete the RAW file for any image that is useful.
>
> Worse yet, you probably want at least two copies of
> every RAW file, and if possible have them on two
> different computers located in two different physical
> locations.
>
> If you want to convert it to an image file and archive
> that, it definitely should be 16 bits per channel. In
> fact it makes some sense to do the initial conversion
> from the RAW data to a 16 bit format, and then archive
> both. The 16 bit format would then be the starting point
> for whatever editing is done. You could easily end up
> with multiple 16 bit conversions, each different.
>
> A better way, however, is to use a conversion program
> which will save it's entire configuration for each
> image. Then, rather than archiving individual huge 16
> bit image files, only a very small configuration file is
> saved, and that is used to regenerate that 16 bit image
> file at any time.
>
> >About a week ago I asked for recommendations for software that would

support
> >a Windows 2000 based workflow. I did not get any replies but since then

I
> >have developed the following workflow. Does it seem sensible?

>
> I use Linux, so I can't really be of much use in regard
> to a Windows workflow.
>
> However... Given that your camera produces a RAW file that
> has no embedded JPEG image, and will only produce either RAW
> or JPEG, the way I would want to deal with RAW would be something
> like this:
>
> 1) Download RAW files to the computer.
>
> A. Use a batch process to generate a "preview"
> JPEG image using default settings. These
> do not need to be high quality conversions,
> but should be full sized and "good enough".
>
> B. Review the JPEG's, deleting obvious culls.
>
> C. Using a scripted batch process (to avoid
> mistakes), delete any RAW file matching a
> deleted JPEG.
>
> D. Copy all RAW files to archive(s).
>
> E. Delete RAW files from Camera or memory card.
>
> 2) Again review the JPEG previews and process
> selected images.
>
> A. Individually do a high quality conversion
> to a suitable intermediate image format.
>
> 1. This file actually never needs to be
> saved to disk at all, it it can be
> fed directly to an editor, while the
> configuration file is saved. That
> would be typical operation if the
> conversion is a plugin module for the
> editor of choice.
>
> 2. Save and archive the configuration
> file which allows this conversion to
> be repeated again.
>
> B. Edit as desired, saving either intermediate
> files or configuration files, as needed.
>
> C. Archive work files as needed.
>
> 3) Use scripted batch processing to apply whatever
> "standard" decorations you choose to for your
> work. For example, a signature/copyright notice,
> borders, or whatever...
>
> 4) Archive final product files as needed.
>
> >In SilkyPix
> > Browse RAWs in thumbnail view with outline display showing

>
> I want to look at each image in full screen size to make
> decisions on actually deleting.
>
> > Right click unwanted images, set delete mark, use file/delete marked
> >when finished
> > Tweak
> > Use Siklypix defaults - they seem to be very

good
> > . Use 'camera setting' for automatic adjust of
> >colour balance

>
> Color balance is quirky. Often a camera does pretty
> good, so using that as your default is probably good.
> Just be aware that now and then the camera will be
> totally wrong, or that the software might give a better
> balance, or that neither will and you will need to
> manually set it.
>
> > Max sharpen on drop down menu (is quite
> >conservative)

>
> Set sharpening to zero. Sharpening depends on the
> display, and should be the last thing done before
> printing or uploading to a webpage. It is individually
> done per _useage_.
>
> > Reserve mark those images requiring archive quality. - Develop RAW to
> >TIFF (8 with Exif) using AdobeRGB colour space
> >In Photoshop Elements 2
> > Read TIFFs
> >. crop
> > using levels tool adjust max light and dark and mid
> >ones - but not discarding any data at extremes
> > adjust colour balance - rarely needed cos Silkypix does

it
> >well

>
> If color balance needs adjustment, I'd go all the way
> back to the RAW to image conversion, and do it there
> (basically, start over).
>
> > if really needed then enhance saturation
> > touch up/remove unwanted items, blemishes, smooth skin,
> >etc
> > add more sharpening if Silkypix did not do enough
> > Reduce noise

>
> Do noise reduction *before* you do anything to sharpen
> it. That includes applying Unsharp Mask techniques too.
>
> > Convert to web, print etc
> >
> >Delete RAW and the two other files created by the camera for each image.

>
> Don't do that. Archive the RAW files. Write them to
> DVD's or buy a lot of really big disks.
>
> For example you can get SATA to USB 2.0 adapters, and a
> couple of 500 Gb disk drives, all relatively for a low
> price. Write *everything* off to two different disks.
>
> Then disconnect the disks between operations, and leave
> them sitting, unpowered, on the shelf. If one of those
> disks ever does die, *immediately* get another one and
> make a second copy of everything.
>
> >In the above workflow I have not found a need for using DNG from the

Adobe
> >DNG generator. Does the workflow seem reasonable?

>
> I haven't got a clue as to why anyone would use DNG at this
> point.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2007
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:12:30 +0100, "Davy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...


>>Note that the raw image data is 12 bits per pixel and
>>there is only a single channel. The raw data has a
>>Bayer color pattern. Each pixel is one color only, in a
>>RGGB pattern. Part of converting from raw data to an
>>image format is using a group of pixels to determine
>>what each pixel's color would be.

>
>I seem to have bought a really crappy camera; only 12 bpp and doesn't even
>record what the colour of the pixels are !!


Not so!

That's a function of the Bayer filters used in the great majority of
digital cameras -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

The FZ8 is an excellent "real" digital camera.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
bits per pixel VS bits per channel peggy83 Digital Photography 1 10-10-2006 07:10 AM
8-Bits vs 12 or 16 bits/pixel; When does more than 8 bits count ? Al Dykes Digital Photography 3 12-29-2003 07:08 PM
Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel Tom Thackrey Digital Photography 2 09-14-2003 04:17 PM
Hot pixel vs. stuck pixel Abrasha Digital Photography 5 09-02-2003 04:49 PM



Advertisments