> > The people in the store were clear ... I wasn't because I used the tem "bitmap" > instead on BMP. > > So, with all this technical talk, which is really very interesting, my original > questions remain unanswered ... at least it seems so: > > Why use a BMP file to burn the images on a CD when everyone else seems to be > using something other (or are they)? What is gained or lost by using the BMP > > TIFF/PSD scenario? Is better to use a TIFF or PSD right from the beginning, no?
You won't lose any actual image data; a BMP contains the same amount of pixel data as athe other formats. You'll lose any Exif or other such metadata, but I haven't seen that on many CDs from a regular photos-on-CD scan The only advantage I can soo to using BMP is that it's a natively-supported image format on windows; you don't need any additional software.
