possible end to jpeg v raw debate

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

  1. Doesn't make any difference, the fact that it is not a lossy
    format has benefits not available in the lossy JPEG format.

    Claiming it is the worst of anything is to ignore a great deal
    of reality. The fact that disk space is cheaper than dirt, for
    example.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 27, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Peter N

    PeterN Guest

    Agreed. But, my comment was directed toward the statement that part of
    the JPEG limitation was due it being an 8 bit format.
     
    PeterN, Feb 28, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ah. Sorry. For some reason I thought you *still* talked about
    THAT statement you wanted clarified and upon which went on and
    on last time you talked to me. The one you wanted explained,
    expanded upon, clarified. In that light, the 'convenient' snip
    was completely understandable, don't you agree?

    Since you have now clarified your question, I can answer it:
    You asked a question I thought was unneccesary, I asked what was
    unclear: A or B (giving a very short explanation for each as well).
    You clammed up and wouldn't, not even when asked, explain what
    was non-obvious, doubtful, wrong, disagreeable or otherwise
    seemingly incorrect to you. I rate that behaviour ridiculous.
    Hence, my remark.

    Peter, that may come as a shock, but for males motherhood is at best
    indirectly obtainable.
    No. Quality/Size is a criterium. As is Bandwidth.
    There is no good reason to use something significantly larger
    than a good lossy JPEG version for a photograph that will not be
    used other than for viewing pleasure. We are not talking medical
    imaging, scientific photos or crime evidence.
    JPEG2000 != JPEG.

    Yes, I know you can do JPEG with more than 8 bits. In which
    case your non-loosy 16 bit JPEG will be much larger than JPEG,
    and for no better viewing. Loading the shots will be slower,
    viewing them on the web will be slower, etc.

    And it'll be larger than RAW, so even if it *had* about all the
    information RAW has, where would the advantage be?

    Result: No matter what you replace RAW with, you'll still use
    lossy JPEG for viewing. Because bandwidth matters. And since
    RAW's straight off the sensor, it's the preferred data format
    for the operations undertaken from a, well, raw sensor output.
    The one about the laughting stock? I really doubt you
    intentionally didn't understand because you wanted to be one.

    So, come again: what part didn't you understand, did you doubt,
    etc.?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2011
  4. And SD-cards and CF-cards only cost a couple cents per terrabyte.

    But there will always be people who'd rather send an uncompressed
    96-bit BMP of a 60+MPix photo of their monitor showing their reply
    rather than a couple bytes ASCII, because disk space is so cheap.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2011
  5. Peter N

    PeterN Guest

    I can't decide which is greater, your:
    a. ignorance;
    b. arrogance;
    c. malevolence;
    d. it's a three way tie.
     
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2011
  6. [a bunch of quoted text without a single reply snipped]
    e. Stupidity. Obviously.

    I haven't killfiled you yet, even though you are great on personal
    attacks, fly of the handle very fast (which may be dangerous to
    others), won't answer a straight question even after being
    asked 3 times --- and project these attributes of yours onto
    others.

    Here's a bait for you: Explain what you meant by ignorance.
    In detail. (Of course noone expects you to answer it, you'd
    have to explain yourself.)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 2, 2011
  7. Peter N

    Peter N Guest

    In what world?
     
    Peter N, Mar 3, 2011
  8. Peter N

    Peter N Guest

    Wiggle, wiggle. We know bullshit when we see it

    Auf weidersein mein fuhrer.
     
    Peter N, Mar 3, 2011
  9. Yes, you know how to wiggle and to produce bullshit.
    What part of the original explanation didn't you grasp?
    PeterN's answer: "$Wiggle $wiggle $bullshit $insult".
    Your spelling is laughable.
    "On top of graze-existence, my läder." Indeed.

    Try googling phrases next time when you intent to insult.

    Try also googling the meaning of the phrases --- even if corrected,
    you would indicate you'd hope to see me again ...

    But maybe you really want to be a laughing stock. I'm starting
    to consider it.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 4, 2011
  10. In the one where bandwidth (both to the internet and inside the
    computer) is infinite, CPU speed is infinite, RAM is infinite
    and disk space is cheaper than dirt.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2011
  11. Peter N

    PeterN Guest

    Infinity?

    So does your intellectual integrity include changing my email addy too?

    Strange when I mentioned in a discussion with Floyd, there was no such
    thing as infinity, except as a mathematical concept, you agreed.

    Bye
     
    PeterN, Mar 5, 2011
  12. No. I just copy the email address that is used by the poster.
    Message ID?
    Since infinity is easily found in speculative fiction, for example.

    But yes, the world described above doesn't exist. Glad that you
    got that, even if it took time ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 6, 2011
    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.