Aha, yes indeedy - and because the film image is grainy, there are not the
wide areas of continuous tone to be jpeg compressed.
Thanks Moose
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Moose
Sent: 20 September 2004 06:36
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: What's missing?
Remember that you are looking at JPEGs, with lossy compression.
2608x1948 pixels is 15,241,152 bytes, or about 15mb. The JPEG image is about
1.15mb, about a 10 to 1 reduction. You are almost always going to see some
compression artifacts at that level. Whether it is a result here of shooting
in HQ mode or later compression for the web, the place where JPEG
compression shows up first is in areas like sky.
So the banding you see doesn't really say anything about the capabilities of
the camera in tonal range.
Moose
Piers Hemy wrote:
>It's much better at 32 bit than 16 bit - but I have an LCD screen,
>which probably accentuates the banding.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|