compressed NEF

Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:

Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.

Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:

Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.

Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:


Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.


Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

If you read the blog from teh link, you'd find out the compressed NEF
format is _lossy_ as stated by Thom Hogan.

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:


Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.


Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

If you read the blog from teh link, you'd find out the compressed NEF
format is _lossy_ as stated by Thom Hogan.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:45:34 -0500, leo wrote:

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:


Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.


Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

If you read the blog from teh link, you'd find out the compressed NEF
format is _lossy_ as stated by Thom Hogan.

But so minor that it only really bother's the scientists at NASA,
because no matter how hard we try, we can't see it.

--
Owamanga!

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:45:34 -0500, leo wrote:

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:


Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.


Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

If you read the blog from teh link, you'd find out the compressed NEF
format is _lossy_ as stated by Thom Hogan.

But so minor that it only really bother's the scientists at NASA,
because no matter how hard we try, we can't see it.

--
Owamanga!

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:45:34 -0500, leo wrote:

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:


Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.


Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

If you read the blog from teh link, you'd find out the compressed NEF
format is _lossy_ as stated by Thom Hogan.

It is an interesting article. Mapping 12 bits into 9.2 for the same
dynamic range is certainly lossy. As the article says, whether it
actually makes any practical difference is a close call, and depends
on the actual curve used in the mapping.

If nothing else, it calls the word "lossless" into question for
compressed NEF.

Sorry for my previous abruptness.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:45:34 -0500, leo wrote:

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:18:54 -0500, leo wrote:


Well, I was stunned to notice that many sites staying D70 uses
_lossless_ NEF format.

So, here is someone's blog clearing things up.

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

It's possibly has no or little effects in the final picture quality.


Since it uses lossless compression, it has no effect on th efinal
picture quality.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

If you read the blog from teh link, you'd find out the compressed NEF
format is _lossy_ as stated by Thom Hogan.

It is an interesting article. Mapping 12 bits into 9.2 for the same
dynamic range is certainly lossy. As the article says, whether it
actually makes any practical difference is a close call, and depends
on the actual curve used in the mapping.

If nothing else, it calls the word "lossless" into question for
compressed NEF.

Sorry for my previous abruptness.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas

Ed Ruf wrote:
[]
I'm only a lowly engineer, but it bothers me at least that the
lossless claim isn't true. Whether it will make a difference I can
see in any of my photos is another story.

The compression part may well be lossless.

As the response of most processes to light is log rather than linear,
making the percentage accuracy the same across the whole dynamic range by
using a log representation of the light level rather than a linear one
makes a lot of sense to me.

Cheers,
David