If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF... That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image, or a RAW file. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l ike-jpg PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata "chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to standarize have not caught up, it seems. Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image, or a RAW file." no, it doesn't say that at all. what it says is this: PNG does not embed EXIF info. it also states: ...you could in principle store any EXIF information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to standarize have not caught up, it seems. which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard way, which isn't particularly useful. in other words, PNG does not embed EXIF info. But I repeat myself... that's all you do. Here's proof: exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l 289 exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l 336 exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l 63 exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l 71 That particular pair of files is the original RAW file and a PNG image derived from that RAW file. The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289 lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from the PNG file. The second set of lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file. completely meaningless. You are hilarious. nowhere near as hilarious as you. Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG file has more meta data than the NEF file! a line count is meaningless. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF... That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image, or a RAW file. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l ike-jpg PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata "chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to standarize have not caught up, it seems. Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG image, or a RAW file." no, it doesn't say that at all. what it says is this: PNG does not embed EXIF info. it also states: ...you could in principle store any EXIF information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to standarize have not caught up, it seems. which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard way, which isn't particularly useful. in other words, PNG does not embed EXIF info. But I repeat myself... that's all you do. Here's proof: exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l 289 exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l 336 exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l 63 exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l 71 That particular pair of files is the original RAW file and a PNG image derived from that RAW file. The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289 lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from the PNG file. The second set of lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file. completely meaningless. You are hilarious. nowhere near as hilarious as you. Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG file has more meta data than the NEF file! a line count is meaningless. Only to a fool. That line count shows how many distinct Exif records there are, and that is what you claimed a PNG file cannot even have. Yet we see that a PNG file can indeed have even more Exif records than a given NEF file. Stop spouting nonsense. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
In article , android
wrote: It's rather pointless to have Exif in the file if editors and viewers wont read them, exactly the point |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Here's proof: exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l 289 exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l 336 exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l 63 exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l 71 That particular pair of files is the original RAW file and a PNG image derived from that RAW file. The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289 lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from the PNG file. The second set of lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file. completely meaningless. You are hilarious. nowhere near as hilarious as you. Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG file has more meta data than the NEF file! a line count is meaningless. Only to a fool. resorting to insults means you have nothing. That line count shows how many distinct Exif records there are, and that is what you claimed a PNG file cannot even have. Yet we see that a PNG file can indeed have even more Exif records than a given NEF file. i didn't say it couldn't have it. what i said was that metadata is not stored in a standard way, which means there's no guarantee anyone else can use it. here in the real world, that means it's not supported. also, having more lines of output means absolutely nothing. it could be the same bogus data repeated many times. in other words, you could have padded it. http://dev.exiv2.org/projects/exiv2/wiki/The_Metadata_in_PNG_files ...There are no standard for Exif, IPTC data. In Exiv2, when Exif, IPTC are added, they are stored in zTXt text chunks and save as ASCII. http://dpanswers.com/roztr/content_show.php?id=261 While the creators of the PNG format anticipated that metadata should be embedded with images, by the provision of allowing a single file to consist of several "chunks", there is yet no standard for embedding metadata in PNG image files. Specifically, PNG does not support more or less establishes tagsets such as EXIF, IPTC or DC. Stop spouting nonsense. after you. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
On 2017-03-21 14:42:31 +0000, android said:
In article , (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Now see what you have started! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
In article 2017032108333538165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: On 2017-03-21 14:42:31 +0000, android said: In article , (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Now see what you have started! Well... If Floyd's sill out there then I have some good news for him: exiftool -tagsFromFile s.jpg t.png do put EXIF in the PNG: exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448-1.jpg | grep -i exif| wc -l 37 exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448-1.png | grep -i exif| wc -l 36 Soo... I guess that he uses dcraw to process the RAW and then transfers the EXIF from NEF to PNG with Exiftool in a script. If it works for him... Most editors would kill most EXIF in PNGs anyways! To bad since I like PNG... -- teleportation kills |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
In article ,
RichA wrote: On Monday, 20 March 2017 05:43:29 UTC-4, android wrote: The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless JPEGs... Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then? http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...on-algoritm-th at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/ http://tinyurl.com/kapexnj -- teleportation kills Then how will some photogs brag about spending hours wrestling with files in a heroic effort to make the perfect TIFF from a RAW? Donnu! I try to conceal efforts like that since I wanna be perceived as a smoothly running machine... -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
'extra' lossless compression for camera raw images | Sachin Garg[_2_] | Digital Photography | 12 | July 8th 08 06:57 PM |
'extra' lossless compression for camera raw images | Sachin Garg[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | July 7th 08 05:20 PM |
'extra' lossless compression for camera raw images | Sachin Garg[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 50 | March 25th 08 10:40 PM |
question about using jpegtran for lossless compression of jpegs | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | October 24th 06 10:55 AM |
batch lossless auto-rotate jpegs | JC Dill | Digital Photography | 3 | March 22nd 06 05:31 PM |