How about my question?
Rather than retype it here (with one finger), suggest you just re-read
it.
(the initiating point that caused the question to be so stated, was one
made wherein I could save on CD storage if they were stored as 1.5mp
jpegs rather than in RAW.)
I simply question the end product produced from the smaller file.
Jack
--- luben karavelov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack Davis wrote:
> > Last questions for now.
> > A close examination of either a 16x24 or 20x30 print (assume
> LighJet if
> > you like) will show no resolution disparity between the two?
> > A 100% (or more) PS image pulled up on my computer will show no
> > detectable difference in detail? I won't see the tell-tail small
> file
> > jpeg artifacts any sooner on the 1.5mp image than I will on the
> 6.1mp?
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Jack
> > --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> You are talking for 1.5 MB (MegaBytes) files (JPEGs) that are 6.1 MP
> (MegaPixels) compressed images. JPEG is not lossy compression, so the
> details and artifacts depends on the compression level. The final
> size
> of the file also depends on amount of details in the image.
>
> Best regards
> luben
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
