>
>Danger, syllogism alert!
>
>Nobody is questioning that raw files are unprocessed - that is exactly what
>I wrote. But that does not mean that TIF files are unprocessed, and your
>references to the Olympus manuals do not make that point. The same point is
>made on p 72 of the E-330 manual, p 64 of the E-5 manual, alluded to on p 79
>pf the E-1 manual and so on. The E-1 manual also clarifies TIFF as follows
>(p 178, in the Glossary of Terms, and it appears in other manuals too):
>" TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) A format used for saving highly detailed
>black and white or color image data. TIFF image files can be handled by
>software programs for scanners and graphics applications. Non-compressed
>image data are stored in this format with this camera."
>
>Notice 'non-compressed' - NOT non-processed - perhaps this is the root of
>the confusion. JPEG are processed and compressed, whereas TIFF are not
>compressed ... but they most certainly are processed.
>
No, you cannot imply that as there is no statement in any of the manuals
that TIFF is processed, only that it is not compressed. It remains to be seen
if there is any processing taking place in the E-500 TIFF files, and that means
returning to where I left off last year and now evaluating TIFF images.
I think the best way to proceed with this is to use the test card provided
in the back of "Filter Practice" by Clauss and Meusel and then compare the
digital TIFF and ORF results with their film results. I did this last year
with the JPEG images and that's what raised the issue of using Wratten filters
with digital B&W.
Chris
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
- Hunter S. Thompson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|