Herb Chong wrote:
but it did exist before most digital cameras existed. there are
several RAW formats as Cory or Toralf describes. image with no
metadata, not even including image dimensions. i thought it was stupid
because the creator had to tell you the number the pixel dimensions
before you could read it and get something useful.
Yep. I think those files fit the term "raw" more properly, though. Using
the term RAW when the file has metadata, i.e. contains a lot besides the
raw pixel data, is counter intuitive, IMO. The fact that the so-called
RAW format is actually different for different camera manufacturers
makes the situation even worse. I think it would be a lot better if they
would call the format, say, "Pentax Camera Image" - or similar for other
brands.
Herb...
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: RAW v JPEG
That's an interesting assertion. The term "raw" really didn't come
into widespread use until digital cameras became commonplace, and
almost every so-called "raw" file from a digital camera contains a
whole lot of other metadata besides the raw sensor values.
