D3 and Raw Compression

David J Taylor wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to be a
little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly )

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

David

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

It isn't conservative, and it is accurate. It tells you
that many pictures can be stored.

If it tried to estimate how many of you images would
take up less than the maximum space an image can use, it
would necessarily be *inaccurate* if none of them did.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

It isn't conservative, and it is accurate. It tells you
that many pictures can be stored.

If it tried to estimate how many of you images would
take up less than the maximum space an image can use, it
would necessarily be *inaccurate* if none of them did.

No, it's not accurate, because it ignores the compression. It's a
worst-case estimate.

David

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

It isn't conservative, and it is accurate. It tells you
that many pictures can be stored.

If it tried to estimate how many of you images would
take up less than the maximum space an image can use, it
would necessarily be *inaccurate* if none of them did.

No, it's not accurate, because it ignores the compression. It's a
worst-case estimate.

And of course that is *accurate*. (It's not very precise.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:54:00 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

It isn't conservative, and it is accurate. It tells you that many
pictures can be stored.

If it tried to estimate how many of you images would take up less than
the maximum space an image can use, it would necessarily be
*inaccurate* if none of them did.

No, it's not accurate, because it ignores the compression. It's a
worst-case estimate.

And of course that is *accurate*. (It's not very precise.)

It appears that you equate "accurate" with "worst case estimate".
At best, it this is a misuse of language, and in a engineering
context, it would be considered seriously misleading.

Mike.

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:54:00 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

It isn't conservative, and it is accurate. It tells you that many
pictures can be stored.

If it tried to estimate how many of you images would take up less than
the maximum space an image can use, it would necessarily be
*inaccurate* if none of them did.

No, it's not accurate, because it ignores the compression. It's a
worst-case estimate.

And of course that is *accurate*. (It's not very precise.)

It appears that you equate "accurate" with "worst case estimate".
At best, it this is a misuse of language, and in a engineering
context, it would be considered seriously misleading.

In an engineering context, it is precisely correct.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:54:00 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

It isn't conservative, and it is accurate. It tells you that many
pictures can be stored.

If it tried to estimate how many of you images would take up less than
the maximum space an image can use, it would necessarily be
*inaccurate* if none of them did.

No, it's not accurate, because it ignores the compression. It's a
worst-case estimate.

And of course that is *accurate*. (It's not very precise.)

It appears that you equate "accurate" with "worst case estimate".
At best, it this is a misuse of language, and in a engineering
context, it would be considered seriously misleading.

In an engineering context, it is precisely correct.

Sounds you would have no problem with an altitude meter in an airplane that
uses GPS altitude. It might be accurate in engineering context, but you will
fly to your certain death, because it reads more then 150 feet above the sea
level, when it actually *is* sea level.
So when you think your flying at 100 feet, you're already buried 50 feet
under ;-)

But at least it was right, in an engineering context. ROFLOL!


--
Sosumi

"Sosumi" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:54:00 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:

Accepted, Floyd, but as it's an estimate, it might at least look to
be a little more accurate. G

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a
situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but
then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's
done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably
more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Perhaps typical of Nikon's more conservative approach.

It isn't conservative, and it is accurate. It tells you that many
pictures can be stored.

If it tried to estimate how many of you images would take up less than
the maximum space an image can use, it would necessarily be
*inaccurate* if none of them did.

No, it's not accurate, because it ignores the compression. It's a
worst-case estimate.

And of course that is *accurate*. (It's not very precise.)

It appears that you equate "accurate" with "worst case estimate".
At best, it this is a misuse of language, and in a engineering
context, it would be considered seriously misleading.

In an engineering context, it is precisely correct.

Sounds you would have no problem with an altitude meter in an airplane that
uses GPS altitude. It might be accurate in engineering context, but you will
fly to your certain death, because it reads more then 150 feet above the sea
level, when it actually *is* sea level.
So when you think your flying at 100 feet, you're already buried 50 feet
under ;-)

But at least it was right, in an engineering context. ROFLOL!

You are being absurd. That is exactly the opposite of
what the camera is doing.

The camera will *never* bury 50 feet under! If it tells
you that you enough head room for 100 shots, you *do*,
*every* *time*. That is accuracy, because it never gives
you an answer that is not valid.

You don't know if it is 100 or 125 or 150 shot, so it is
not precise.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Using anything but the pessimistic estimate would risk having a situation
where it tells you that you have room for X number of images, but then it
turns out that you couldn't fit that many after all. The way it's done,
you know you have room for that many images, and possibly/probably more.
The estimate may be low, but it won't be high.

Nikon is/used to be accurate and precise regarding the number
of JPEGs. But then Nikon does/used to compress JPEGS to a given
size, not to a given quality, so a low resolution out-of-focus
sky used as much data as the busiest picture ...

Most other camera makers prefers to set the quality of the image
and live with the fact that o-o-f skies produce smaller JPEGs ---
and busy scenes take more at a given quality.

-Wolfgang