> 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. Ah A) For some reason I'd understood that Fuji raw files were actually raw after all: on Dave Coffin's DCRAW pages he refers to >fujiturn.c -- rotate Fuji Super CCD images >An alternative to dcraw's built-in Fuji rotation. http://www.cybercom.net/%7Edcoffin/dcraw/ - Why would Fuji bloat their RAW files before writing them? - Does that not defeet the whole object? B) I loved the naïf quote from another site BTW: "RAW files are the unprocessed output of digital image sensors." http://www.imatest.com/docs/imatest_instructions.html - Well, that's how you would think it should be :o) C) I've tried Google but failed to find any definitive clear statement about Fuji's RAW format. For the Super CCD you might expect a TRUE unprocessed raw file to contain all the original sensor data (so for instance the images can be reprocessed in their entirety with any new software upgrades from Fuji :o). If FUJI really do rotate by 45degrees (aka bloat) their sensor data before saving as "RAW" it's easy to understand how you can compress upwards. As you are aware I'm sure David: you can't create information from nothing. An upsampled image is indeed "hollow" and easily susceptible to compression. D) There simply are no (zero) technical reasons for encrypting image files (unless the user chooses the option). The only real reason is control - loss of freedom - and exploitation. It probably is the future with the way software-patent law is going. What surprises me is not that the manufacturers are trying it on but that the majority of consumers don't seem to give a damn. Bob http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Free-as-in-freedom.jpg
