quality /size ?

[corydoras]

...there is a word for it 'extrapolated'???? ...

I think the word you are searching for in 'interpolated'. The camera calculates the missing pixel info from the surrounding 'real' pixels. Photoshop uses a similar technique when you scale a photo up.

Edited September 6, 2006 by corydoras

[corydoras]

What make/model camera do you have chesters?

[Steve Randles]

a fuji e550

 

For corydoras

 

Steve...

[Newt]

i have photoshop that probably does but i use PSP7

 

Weren't you moaning speaking on another thread about not being able to afford all this fancy, high-end software?

 

 

 

[Guest CJS2]

I think the word you are searching for in 'interpolated'. The camera calculates the missing pixel info from the surrounding 'real' pixels. Photoshop uses a similar technique when you scale a photo up.

 

That the one mate, me'e grandmother was Hilda Baker, "she nos' yu'no" My god, showing my age now, you young'ns wont remember Hilda Baker, Hatlepool lass was Hilda, like my Hazel

 

CJS2, Cliff

[chesters1]

Weren't you moaning speaking on another thread about not being able to afford all this fancy, high-end software?

 

 

 

had it not been for a kind member i wouldnt , but i'm sure i'm not the only one who couldnt afford it for real.

i prefer psp because its pretty basic ,open photoshop and the screens full of things to play with or in my case get confused by

Edited September 6, 2006 by chesters1

[poledark]

I had a little play around with RAW, TIFF, and jpeg. Took the pic in RAW, made a copy in TIFF and another copy in JPEG...put them side by side on the screen and I could see no difference!

 

I haven't tried printing them yet.... I used Nikon Capture and the pics were 8mpx.

 

Den

[Guest CJS2]

I had a little play around with RAW, TIFF, and jpeg. Took the pic in RAW, made a copy in TIFF and another copy in JPEG...put them side by side on the screen and I could see no difference!

 

I haven't tried printing them yet.... I used Nikon Capture and the pics were 8mpx.

 

Den

 

 

Strange that, I took two pics this PM in the garden one RAW one JPEG. I had similar results, but put it down to my incompetence with the soft ware?

 

[chesters1]

I had a little play around with RAW, TIFF, and jpeg. Took the pic in RAW, made a copy in TIFF and another copy in JPEG...put them side by side on the screen and I could see no difference!

 

I haven't tried printing them yet.... I used Nikon Capture and the pics were 8mpx.

 

Den

what happens when you zoom in Den ,must admit i see no difference but i think tiff saves pixel by pixel so everything is there and jpeg compresses so loses detail ,????

my "12mp" function has two save modes fine and normal so i pressume on saving on the memory card the camera compresses the fine one less .but compression means something is lost no-less.

Raw mode means the camera doesn't fiddle with the picture before its saved to card ,i presume in reality everything is RAW but in saving the camera saves it as a jpeg for space reasons as a norm as if it saved in RAW "naturally" that puny 16mb card you get as standard would be full after one pic

Edited September 7, 2006 by chesters1

[poledark]

That's how I interpret it Chesters

 

Compression is where the camera/comp removes some pixels that "someone" has decided the human eye will not miss

 

Some camers delete all the edge pixels (to save memory) these are the ones outside the seen image....gets worse don't it

 

Den