Thanks, Godfrey. Hopefully, information from this highly learned group
will seep into a small aperture ('prox f/320) somewhere and force it's
way into my reality.
Your explanation is seriously helpful.
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack,
>
> Not sure I understand your question.
>
> A 6.1 Megapixel image can be represented in files of varying size
> depending upon the pixel depth as well as how much and what type of
> compression you apply. A 1.5M JPEG rendering might have substantial
> compression artifacts, or it might have very little, depending upon
> the image and the quality of the JPEG compressor.
>
> Curious about how much difference one might see, I took the photo I
> posted recently of my brother (a full 6Mpixel uncompressed Photoshop
>
> image, 34.2Mbytes in size) and rendered it at HIGH quality JPEG
> compression to 1.5Mbytes file size. I then created a new file with a
>
> pixel difference calculation. Judging by what I see in that
> difference file, the difference in a print up to A3 Super in size is
>
> going to be pretty small.
>
> However, if I'd captured the image as an in-camera JPEG and done all
>
> my editing in [EMAIL PROTECTED], I suspect the total difference would be
> much greater. There's no question that the original, not-JPEG,
> uncompressed image will print better too, the difference is purely a
>
> matter of what you consider as significant.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
