Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > I'm currently converting my Fuji S2 RAW files into DNG and working >> > from there. Mostly because the DNG file is less than half the > size of >> > the original RAW. I hope I don't regret it. I haven't gone back > and >> > done it to older originals yet. > Is this "half" fairly consistent or is it less effective for > high-detail images? > It's hard to see how you can losslessly compress some images to 50% > unless the source "information" is hollow to start with. It varies. And the Fuji S2 "RAW" file is *after* interpolation to a rectangular 12MP image, so 50% compression really makes *perfect* sense to me. > Of course: raw is not raw. Nikon's NEF format has less bits per > sensor than the camera does for intance (it's already been processed). I think maybe the Fuji one is also reduced that way, which annoys me greatly. Of course you can produce 16-bits-per-channel conversions from it. > The real problem with proprietry raw formats is that they are > undocumented, not that one is better than another. > At least with TIFFs anyone can read them ... and the private tags too > if you have a mind to look inside. Yes. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
