A pixel by any other name...

In article , philo*
wrote:

that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).

Since you cannot cite an example I'm going to have to assume you are
trolling. (Others may make their own judgment.)

an example of what? do you mean errors in the above link? there are
*numerous* problems with that page. here's a few:

Raw requires dedicated software to read.

completely wrong. mac os x has raw support built in, which means most
mac software can read raw directly. even just tapping the spacebar will
open an image.


snip


Ok I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion

they are, even when it's wrong.

what i wrote was fact.

Jennifer Murphy wrote:
I think digital photography is beyond my mental capacities (sigh).

I have several photos that were saved both as raw image files and as
jpgs. For many of them, the jpg file reports more pixels than the raw
image file. How can that be? I thought a jpg file was a compressed
version of the raw image file. So the number of pixels should be at most
the same, and I would have thought somewhat lower.

You're right, but your files/examples are wrong.

Camera: Canon 5D Mark I with Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens

Filetype: CR2 (raw file)
Pixels: 2496 x 1664 Pixels (4.15 MPixels) (3:2)

Not a 5D RAW.

Camera: Panasonic DMC-G1 with a 14-45 zoom lens

Filetype: RW2 (raw file)
Pixels: 1920 x 1440 Pixels (2.76 MPixels) (4:3)

Nope, not a Panasonic DMC-G1 RAW.


Camera: Nikon D700 with a 24-120 mm zoom lens

Filetype: PSD (raw file)
Pixels: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)

Naah, not a Nikon D700 raw. Wrong format even.


Apparently you can get 5D sample RAWs he
http://www.rytterfalk.com/2007/04/15...-for-download/

-Wolfgang

On 4/13/2013 5:31 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , philo
wrote:

that person makes stuff up and intentionally misleads people, thinking
it's some sort of game (he admits this on his about page).

Since you cannot cite an example I'm going to have to assume you are
trolling. (Others may make their own judgment.)

an example of what? do you mean errors in the above link? there are
*numerous* problems with that page. here's a few:

Raw requires dedicated software to read.

completely wrong. mac os x has raw support built in, which means most
mac software can read raw directly. even just tapping the spacebar will
open an image.


snip


Ok I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion

they are, even when it's wrong.

what i wrote was fact.


Do you believe Ken Rockwell's "Apple" articles?

Apple Reviews and Guides http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/index.htm

John

In article , John Turco
wrote:

Do you believe Ken Rockwell's "Apple" articles?

Apple Reviews and Guides http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/index.htm

nope. there's bogus stuff there too.

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

I have several photos that were saved both as raw image files and as
jpgs. For many of them, the jpg file reports more pixels than the raw
image file. How can that be? I thought a jpg file was a compressed
version of the raw image file. So the number of pixels should be at most
the same, and I would have thought somewhat lower.

You're right, but your files/examples are wrong.

the files are fine. it's her software that's wrong.

Camera: Canon 5D Mark I with Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens
Filetype: CR2 (raw file)
Pixels: 2496 x 1664 Pixels (4.15 MPixels) (3:2)

Not a 5D RAW.

the software is reporting the size of the embedded jpeg, not the raw
itself. the software is the problem.

Camera: Panasonic DMC-G1 with a 14-45 zoom lens
Filetype: RW2 (raw file)
Pixels: 1920 x 1440 Pixels (2.76 MPixels) (4:3)

Nope, not a Panasonic DMC-G1 RAW.

the software is reporting the size of the embedded jpeg, not the raw
itself. the software is the problem.

Camera: Nikon D700 with a 24-120 mm zoom lens
Filetype: PSD (raw file)
Pixels: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)

Naah, not a Nikon D700 raw. Wrong format even.

that one is a photoshop file, which probably was made from a raw and if
done properly, is just as good, even though it was cropped.

Apparently you can get 5D sample RAWs he
http://www.rytterfalk.com/2007/04/15...-for-download/

a much better place is he
http://www.rawsamples.ch/