I'm waiting for the budget for something like an Sony Alpha A-9xx series
(36MP full 35mm-sized sensor). And the bigger budget for very good
lenses to go along with it, of course!
12 years ago, I guess they decided TIFF was the best format available
for a lossless image format back then (even 100% JPG quality throws out
some color info). I guess they also decided they didn't want to provide
a proprietary lossless RAW format back then.
On 12/12/2012 07:49 AM, JohnPW wrote:
Yep, old.
It's a Nikon Coolpix 4500. It must be over 12 years old by now. I got it
when I did for quick digital images for my work, but I didn't want to
spend on a DSLR at the time because they were so expensive and not very
mature. I've been slow to get a DSLR,waiting for larger sensors, which
are not getting more common. The Cannon 5D Mark II is getting me interested.
I set the camera to do no sharpening, saturation, or contrast
adjustments and to use minimal compression when processing the jpeg.
I have looked at a hack to make the camera put out RAW, but it looked
iffy, and Nikon seems to actively block such efforts (hence my interest
in Cannon and Magic Lantern software.)
John
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:29:04 AM UTC-6, GnomeNomad wrote:
You have a camera that shoots TIFF? Old camera. My Maxum 7D (several
years old) shoots RAW or JPG. It shoots 3 frames per second, regardless
of format. RAW is the raw data dump from the CCD and reflects the
actual
layout of the individual color sensors on the CCD. I think most DSLRs
have a RAW format. The RAW format typically isn't processed by anything
in camera (many cameras do some processing such as sharpening or noise
reduction to the image when making a JPG out of a RAW file).
On 12/11/2012 09:32 AM, JohnPW wrote:
> Just to clarify:
> The image capture is the onerous part. My old camera (Nikon CP4500)
> takes forever to capture a TIFF (10-15 seconds between shots) I can
> capture JPEGs, bracketed or not, in a burst and the resulting
files are
> much smaller than a single TIFF. In post porcessing on the
compute,r the
> TIFFS are not onerous.
> John
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 10:10:00 PM UTC-6, GnomeNomad wrote:
>
> Hmm, I think using TIFF isn't onerous at all!
--
Gnome Nomad
[email protected]
wandering the landscape of god
http://www.clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/otherend/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and
other free panoramic software" group.
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
