> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harman Bajwa > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: EOS RAW or JPG > > --- Tom Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think comparing file sizes of JPG and BMP is really > > meaningful, because they are different formats, just as a > spreadsheet > > saved in Excel format wouldn't necessarily be the same size as an > > identical spreadsheet in Lotus format. > > Sorry, but I disagree. I have had some experience in > programming with formats many years ago when JPEG was not the > rage. A bitmap is the true pixel representation of the image. > At that time I think TIFF was the rage since it was able cut > the file size down without losing any information (lossless) > and hence ppl could have much bigger resolution for their > scanned images and still not incur the penalty of the BMP > size. Then the JPEG caught the rage and it is still the > leader today because of what it can do by using the Lossy > format to the file size, while still retaining quality > acccording to users preferences. A parallel was true of video > formats with MPEG compression (if anyone here still remembers > the behemoths called LDs). > > - Harman >
Then you're saying that if I took a TIFF file and converted it to BMP, the files sizes would be the same? No way. Tom P. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
