Shawna Hanel <shawna@lightwriting.net> wrote/replied to: >> Like I said, I looked and my JPG files saved at 12 average around 7 >> megs. To say there is alot of savings using JPG is nonsense. > >Have you all seriously considered the fact that jpg compression does not >treat images equally? Some images compress substantially without >"appearing" to lose anything, while other images look awful with minimal >amounts of compression. > >Because of the way jpg compression works, images with large areas of >gradual tonal variations compress very well. But if you have an image >packed with detail and many sharp tonal transitions, just a small amount >of compression is all that the jpg format can give you. So comparing >raw files to jpgs in general for compressability is not really a fair >comparison. Yes actually it is, because raw files just like jpg files re compressed and each file compresses differently. That's why I said 'around 7 megs'. Raw and JPG 12 files are about the same size, although the raw files tend to be slightly smaller. Raw file though are lossless, while even at the 12 level JPG files are lossy. Interestingly, files with more noise, like higher ISO images are larger for the reason you mentioned. Jim Davis - checkout the Motorcycle Headlight Relay Kit at: http://jimdavis.oberro.com/html/bike_acc_.html
