Shel et al, Thanks for the insights on printing. It is more complex than I imagined.
As for the information I have used, I think it is closer to 6.5mb than 2.2mb. I stiched 4 images, each 2000x3000 pixels into 1 image 5000x3000 pixels. If there was no overlap, it would be 8000x3000 pixels so I discarded 37% of the info as redundant. The jpeg isn't a TIFF, but I have no doubt that it could be a 40mb TIFF file as Rob or somebody said. I'm sure a RAW file would be better, but the stiching program uses jpegs, and I presume your right Paul that this is about the limits On 12/6/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But Bob used three smaller JPEGs stitched together to arrive at a total > figure of 6.5mb. That's not quite the same as a single file of 6.5mb, and, > as I asked before, it would seem that the effective amount of information > in the large, combined file is the equivalent of 2.2mb or so. > > Shel > "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Mann > > > Looking at the typical compression ratios I've been getting with my > > web pics, a 43Mb TIFF reduced to 6.5Mb JPEG would be pretty good. > > Hopefully the printers didn't try making major adjustments to the > > JPEG... > > >
