There are folks on this list whose first hand experience with new technology stopped with flash bulbs. All they know about is some mathematical model, and they don't know if it's any good, or if it makes any sense. If they really knew anything, they'd be making more noise about what is lost on the 16 > 8 bit conversions, and not because someone does one, high quality save to JPG.
BR Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I compared a RAW image to a least-lossy setting jpeg and the >difference was minimal - it was virtually impossible to detect by >increasing magnification in Photoshop until I was examining individual >pixels, simoultaneously, all over the images. By using the jpeg images >instead of the RAW images, the loss is perfectly acceptable to me given >that the advantages are less room taken up in storage and faster >processing of pictures. > __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
