Jack,I don't know much about 20x30 prints.A jpeg of 2000x3000 pixels and a RAW
shot of 2000x3000 pixels have thesame number of pixels in the end, 6 million.
Each one of these pixelshas a Red color attributed to it and each color code
(R,G, or B?)takes up a bite. Pretty quickly you can see that you are going
toneed a lot more than 6 million bites to store a 2000x3000 picture.So no
matter how you store the original 6 meg camera's sensor output,you are gonna
make some serious compromises. For me, most of thepictures I've taken as
highest quality jpegs on the *ist DS have beenin the 1.5 megabite size range.
(A maple tree in fall with fullcolors will be more as the colors vary from
pixel to pixel a lot morethan a shot with a broad expanse of sky.)You can look
at these pictures on your monitor at full resolution andsee the pixels that
define the edges of things. I suspect that theedges in a 6 megabite RAW file
and a 6 megabite jpeg would be verysimilar. The question really c!
omes down to how much can that image becompressed before losing important
detail. I can't really answer thatfor you as I have no experience with
20x30's.Regards, Bob S.
On 11/28/05, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I'll work on being
"meaningful." In the meantime I'd love to feel> content with an answer to what
I though was an embarrassingly basic> question: Will a 1.5mb or 1.5mp jpeg
produce as sharp a 20x30 print as> a 6.0mb or 6.0mp RAW capture?> My guess is
that based on mb, no.> Re-opening a seriously compressed jpeg should be
sparingly done to> avoid artifacts? B'lieve that's what I heard and have
experienced.>> Jack>>> --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > On 28
Nov 2005 at 18:13, Jack Davis wrote:> >> > > 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.> >> > All I read was 1.5 meg which I assumed!
to be 1.5MB(ytes) not> > 1.5MP(ixels) which> > are of course two independent
and oft misinterpreted measures.> > Everyone has to> > be arguing about the
same thing for it to be a meaningful discourse> > :-)> >> >> >> >> > Rob
Studdert> > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA> > Tel +61-2-9554-4110> > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/> >
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998> >> >>>>>>
__________________________________________> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write
home about.> Just $16.99/mo. or less.> dsl.yahoo.com>>
