possible end to jpeg v raw debate

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Peter N, Feb 3, 2011.

  1. Peter N

    Peter N Guest

    Peter N, Feb 3, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 3, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peter N

    Savageduck Guest

    ....and Nikon offers RAW uncompressed, RAW compressed, & RAW Lossless
    Compressed, along with good old fashioned JPEG.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 3, 2011
    #3
  4. A meaningless point of no significance.
    That has no significance either. The idea that lossless
    JPEG somehow makes shooting RAW of no consequence is
    naive.

    The RAW file is not an image, it contains raw sensor
    data. From that data it is possible to produce an
    infinite number of images, all similar but distinctly
    different, and each could be saved to a JPEG format.

    A JPEG file holds just one of the possible images, but
    does not retain the information required to produce the
    others.

    If lossy compression is used it means that when it is
    uncompressed to another RGB format for display, and then
    that RGB format is recompressed to a new JPEG image, it
    *will not be exactly the same image as the original*.
    If lossless compression is used, *the two will be the
    same image*.

    But that doesn't mean the infinite number of images
    which can be produced from the raw data can be found in
    a JPEG, regardless of whether lossy or lossless
    compression is used. It is still just one of those
    infinite number of images, and the data which is excess
    to just the specific one image is not included into the
    JPEG format.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 3, 2011
    #4
  5. Peter N

    Savageduck Guest

    It's OK Floyd, I am well aware that RAW vs. JPEG are two different
    animals, and the issues involved along the road to processing to obtain
    a visual result from the recorded data. You and I both know that JPEG
    (lossless or not) is never going to give you the flexibility of RAW.

    I added my 2¢ worth regarding the RAW Lossless Compressed option
    offered by Nikon. I don't actually use it, but it might be worth a try
    some day.

    For the most part I shoot exclusively in good old fashion uncompressed
    RAW regardless of Nikon's claims of 20-40% file size reduction without
    change in quality. Memory cards are relatively inexpensive.
    I occasionally shoot RAW + JPEG, and I have not shot JPEG only since 2003.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 4, 2011
    #5
  6. Peter N

    ray Guest

    From a mathematical standpoint, you can only generate a finite number of
    images - although the number would be quite large. The fact that we are
    dealing with a finite number of digital points implies only a finite
    number of combinations are possible.
     
    ray, Feb 4, 2011
    #6
  7. Peter N

    Robert Coe Guest

    > If this format performs as claimed and it adapted, it could end the debate.
    :
    : > Claim: lossless JPEG.
    :
    : > <http://www.sdtimes.com/content/resources.aspx?ShowOnlyResourceID=400&RefID=SpecialNeeds2.2>
    :
    : You are aware that at least Canon's RAW is already compressed by the
    : lossless JPEG method?
    :
    : In other news, the new century began on the first of January 1901.

    Indeed it did. And I won't embarrass you by suggesting that you don't know
    that it wasn't *this* new century. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 4, 2011
    #7
  8. Peter N

    Savageduck Guest

    Yup! That was January 1, 2001.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 4, 2011
    #8
  9. There are a finite number of digital points, but there are an infinite
    number of different combinations and manipulations, thus an infinite
    possible number of images.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 4, 2011
    #9
  10. A meaningless point of no significance.
    So you doubt that Nikon's claims of 20-40% file
    reduction are true? Or you doubt that it doesn't change
    the data? Sort of silly...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 4, 2011
    #10
  11. Peter N

    Ofnuts Guest

    Not infinite. Only quite large.
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 4, 2011
    #11
  12. Quite large, plus 1. That's infinity.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 4, 2011
    #12
  13. Peter N

    The Bailey Guest

    I think that most of the contributors in this thread must be software
    engineers more than photographers.
    They make me yearn for a roll of Ilford HP4 as they have lost me, a
    mere photographer, completely.
     
    The Bailey, Feb 4, 2011
    #13
  14. Peter N

    Peter N Guest

    So does Nikon. But, last time I looked, lossless RAW is a significantly
    larger file than the specs for lossless JPEG.

    You are the great programmer, tell us the deficiencies in this algorithm!
     
    Peter N, Feb 4, 2011
    #14
  15. Peter N

    Peter N Guest

    Have you read the white paper?
     
    Peter N, Feb 4, 2011
    #15
  16. Peter N

    Richard Guest

    No.
    Quite large, plus 1 = Quite large+1
    Infinity is either much larger, much smaller or both than that.
     
    Richard, Feb 4, 2011
    #16
  17. Peter N

    Peter N Guest

    Suggest you review your notes from set theory 101. Not even the stars,
    nor possible arrangements of all the grains of sand on all the beaches
    in the world are infinite.
    If there are a finite number of starting points, by definition the
    possible combinations of them are finite.
     
    Peter N, Feb 4, 2011
    #17
  18. Peter N

    Peter N Guest

    January 1, 2000.
     
    Peter N, Feb 4, 2011
    #18
  19. Not true. If you can *always* add another way, it's infinite.

    Infinity is never "much" larger or smaller, it's just
    always able to be at least larger and small.

    For example, if you can always cut something in half,
    the fact that "half" become vanishing small is not
    important; and the significance is that it can be done
    an infinite number of times by definition.

    The same is true if at least something more can always be
    added.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 4, 2011
    #19
  20. That's easily demonstrated to be false. Any two objects
    can be repositioned in an infinite number of ways. That
    is because while there is a finite set of objects, the
    distance between them is not one of a finite set. No
    matter how close or how far, it can be made half as
    close or fatherer by 1.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 4, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.