Jpeg or RAW?

[RV]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Agree again. But to claim that raw files are not compressible is a false statement.

No one said the we not able to be compressed, they said many different things including being compressed, uncompressed, and lossless compressed in the case of Nikon.

There are to many RAW file formats, each camera maker has their own with their own pros and cons. This is why Adobe has created the .dng. Read about it and learn something.

[aam1234]

Our friend Apaflo doesn't think that raw files are "compressible".

Originally Posted by RV

This is why Adobe has created the .dng. Read about it and learn something.

[Warning, personal opinion ahead] I look at DNG as nothing more than a Tiff with a red lipstick Meaning, it's still a Tiff at heart.

[apaflo]

Lets look what aam1234 has in fact said as opposed to what aam1234 now claims to have said:

From message number 138 in this thread:

Originally Posted by aam1234

A raw file is compressed. Slightly, but still compressed.

When it was pointed out that that was not correct, aam1234 responded with insults and this in message number 155:

Originally Posted by aam1234

Yes they are. The degree of compression might vary but the camera tries to compress as much as possible without compromising data quality.

I'm not an engineer so don't take that at face value. The point is, the "engine" tries to compress data.

Again, it was pointed out that the above is not correct, and aam1234 responds with more insults plus an out and out reversal, claiming to have never said what is quoted above, and then in message number 178 a complete fabrication of what the exchange has been:

Originally Posted by aam1234

Here we go again. English language.

I never said raw files are "necessarily compressed", I said raw files are "compressible". Meaning, the camera CAN compress a raw file.

It's "always" (your statement) vs. "It's possible" (my statement).

And next comes message number 180 with a bit of waffling on the original statements, and another total fabrication about what others have said:

Originally Posted by aam1234

Agree. From my understanding (and I'm far from an expert in the matter), raw compression is minimal.



Agree again. But to claim that raw files are not compressible is a false statement.

Nobody has been discussing how compressible RAW files are, and nobody has denied that RAW files can be and commonly are compressed. Yet aam1234 makes dishonest claims like this:

Originally Posted by aam1234

Our friend Apaflo doesn't think that raw files are "compressible".

The lack of integrity in this series of statements is huge. Particularly when accompanied with insults about other people not understanding English...

[aam1234]

Good work, I must admit.

The fact remains the same, though. You don't think a raw file can be compressed. I say otherwise.

[apaflo]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Good work, I must admit.

The fact remains the same, though. You don't think a raw file can be compressed. I say otherwise.

What is your point in making up abjectly stupid out and out lies that are so obviously false?

[aam1234]

You= Raw files can not be compressed

Me= Raw files can be compressed

Which part you don't understand.

[Jackofjr]

Jeeze , compressed , uncompressed , stuffed if I know and don't care they are what they are
lets see some of RV's photos

[stef@apl]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Our friend Apaflo doesn't think that raw files are "compressible".

Not everything can be compressed, but if that's his statement, by definition (or rather, lack of definition) of "raw", if that's what he actually says, he's wrong. Generally, if they're already compressed you can't compress it further. But since I can invent my own "raw" format that can be compressed, it's like hitting a moving target that knows where you're shooting.

[apaflo]

Originally Posted by stef@apl

Not everything can be compressed, but if that's his statement, by definition (or rather, lack of definition) of "raw", if that's what he actually says, he's wrong.

No, that is where aam1234 is wrong when he fabricates such grossly absurd ideas and attributes them to others.

Generally, if they're already compressed you can't compress it further. But since I can invent my own "raw" format that can be compressed, it's like hitting a moving target that knows where you're shooting.

That would only be true for compressed data that has all entropy removed, which generally does not happen and therefore it can be compressed further with the right algorithm.

Note that that says exactly nothing at all about whether anything is or is not compressed or whether it makes sense to compress it at all, much less try to further compress it if has already been compressed.

[Jackofjr]

Dose anyone really give a rats , who said what
come on RV show us some of these photos that are so much better than anyone could possibly take with a JPEG