Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate

On 3/1/2011 10:34 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
PeterN<peter.new@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/26/2011 6:16 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
PeterN<peter.new@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/25/2011 4:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson<floyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The response from PeterN was precisely appropriate.

Sure. If PeterN wanted to come over as a laughing stock.

Now is the time to explain your statement. No bullshit. just facts. No
twisting, either, as I have seen you try. You are very big on personal
attacks. Now put up of shut up.

*sigh*

A convenient snip of a relevant comment, that entirely changes the
meaning of my above statement. I requested, no demanded a clarification
of your derogatory statement about me.

Ah. Sorry. For some reason I thought you *still* talked about
THAT statement you wanted clarified and upon which went on and
on last time you talked to me. The one you wanted explained,
expanded upon, clarified. In that light, the 'convenient' snip
was completely understandable, don't you agree?

Since you have now clarified your question, I can answer it:
You asked a question I thought was unneccesary, I asked what was
unclear: A or B (giving a very short explanation for each as well).
You clammed up and wouldn't, not even when asked, explain what
was non-obvious, doubtful, wrong, disagreeable or otherwise
seemingly incorrect to you. I rate that behaviour ridiculous.
Hence, my remark.


Lossless jpeg takes more space than lossy jpeg. This should
be self evident, if not, google.

I'm in favor of motherhood and apple pie.

Peter, that may come as a shock, but for males motherhood is at best
indirectly obtainable.

Is disk space your sole criteria?

No. Quality/Size is a criterium. As is Bandwidth.
There is no good reason to use something significantly larger
than a good lossy JPEG version for a photograph that will not be
used other than for viewing pleasure. We are not talking medical
imaging, scientific photos or crime evidence.

Jpeg is 8 bits gamma coded, which doesn't have the latitude
of RAW with 12+ bits. This should be self evident, if not,
google.

So you have a format larger than lossy (normal) jpeg, that
doesn't offer the advantages of RAW. The worst of both
worlds. That also should be self evident.

And how many bits in JPEG 2000?

JPEG2000 != JPEG.

Yes, I know you can do JPEG with more than 8 bits. In which
case your non-loosy 16 bit JPEG will be much larger than JPEG,
and for no better viewing. Loading the shots will be slower,
viewing them on the web will be slower, etc.

And it'll be larger than RAW, so even if it *had* about all the
information RAW has, where would the advantage be?

Result: No matter what you replace RAW with, you'll still use
lossy JPEG for viewing. Because bandwidth matters. And since
RAW's straight off the sensor, it's the preferred data format
for the operations undertaken from a, well, raw sensor output.

And now it's time for you to explain what part you didn't
understand the first time and the second time around. No
attacks, no clamshelling, just facts. No twisting, as you
have done, no biting and no brickwalling. You are very big
on passive agressive. Now put up or shut up.

Look at the statement made immediately prior to my request for clarity.

The one about the laughting stock? I really doubt you
intentionally didn't understand because you wanted to be one.

So, come again: what part didn't you understand, did you doubt,
etc.?


I can't decide which is greater, your:
a. ignorance;
b. arrogance;
c. malevolence;
d. it's a three way tie.

--
Peter
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
    ... used other than for viewing pleasure. ... This should be self evident, if not, ... doesn't offer the advantages of RAW. ... JPEG2000!= JPEG. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
    ... doesn't offer the advantages of RAW. ... That also should be self evident. ... And how many bits in JPEG 2000? ... format has benefits not available in the lossy JPEG format. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: RAW or not RAW? :)
    ... When you "view" a "raw ... the program either looks at the embedded JPEG ... not converted to a standard image file format at all. ... the specific conversion process for jpeg is different than nef, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: RAW: Isnt everything compressed anyway?
    ... >RAW over a high quality JPEG setting? ... compression and noise supression that is too strong. ... This is where the difference between shadow ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: ScottWs "test results.
    ... have the choice, not just the camera. ... when shooting RAW and doing the setting in software after the shoot. ... All 5 of them now only ever capture in JPEG although I ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)