> Personally, if image quality is important I would chose the raw
format.
> This should save almost 50% of a tiff image but does not lose any
> information.
The ONLY reason it does not lose any information for such an
apparently big saving over TIFF is that the *information* never
existed in the first place.
As all here will know (?) CCD "pixels" are monochrome ... R G or B.
For the most part (excluding Raw) digital cameras interpolate (read
make up) the extra info giving a bloated file size. But there is
actually a net *loss* of information in this process. because the
resulting TIFF does not retain which values are real and which pure
fiction ... it does not flag that.
For high res images where loss of info wants to be minimised Raw is
the only way to go ... so long as your software (image editor) can
handle it. But you have to make up the missing colur info somewhere
... it just seems more sensible to do it in a computer where disk
space is cheap than in a camera where it is always a compromise.
Bob
(PS ... has anyone done a bytewise comparison between an uncompressed
TIFF and the raw format? Are the real pixel values (of the raw)
retained after bloating or are all the pixels partially the work of
fiction?
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
