They are actually referring to an uncompressed TIFF image from a raw file.
I did a rough calculation that the E-1 would produced an uncompressed file
around 13.5 MB (my E-10 produces a file around 12 MB). I'm figuring a 5.5
MP CCD (or CMOS) would probably be the lowest I could go (a Foveon based
camera excepted). The N*k*n and C*n*n cameras in the same class as the E-1
are over 6 MP.
If my calculations are incorrect, or lacking - please advise! I know
there are other factors to consider, and since this is going to be such an
expensive upgrade, I really want to get my head around this whole digital
mess. I began shooting all my E-10 images in raw format a short time ago
and with Photoshop CS, the image quality (which was good anyway) has
improved by a significant amount. I find that the raw format actually
contains a wider density range although the highlights can clip quite
suddenly (not unlike slide film).
Unfortunately, without interpolation, the TIFF files come in about 5 MB too
small, although many of my images from the E-10 have been accepted by this
agency in the past.
Jim Caldwell
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Chuck Norcutt chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:56:09 -0500
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: OM to E1 adaptor
Note that the full frame Canon EOS-1Ds only has a raw image size of 9-10
MB. It 11 megapixel image is certainly competitive with medium format.
Since a raw format image of 17MB would likely exceed the image quality
of all medium format film images does this mean that they will not
accept 35mm film anymore as well? Something doesn't jive.
Chuck Norcutt
jamesfc@xxxxxxx wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|