Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gewitty" data-source="post: 556651" data-attributes="member: 41952">The confusion seems to arise from the way in which some software displays file sizes. Some actually refer to MB, when they actually mean MP. Looking at a detailed Properties list for each file type, I see that images shot as RAW files have an actual file size of 27.66MB (29,000,049) and are 24MP resolution. Images shot as JPG's are 18.5MB (19,394,782) with the same resolution. If I open an embedded JPG from within a RAW file, then save it directly, it has a file size of 5.9MB and a resolution of 24MP. Given that the camera uses its own software to convert the RAW file to an embedded JPG, it would seem that this does involve some significant compression.Having got that far, I'm not quite so confused as I was previously and can see that the answer to my original question is that the embedded JPG is not a direct or adequate substitute for one shot directly.Phew!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gewitty, post: 556651, member: 41952"] The confusion seems to arise from the way in which some software displays file sizes. Some actually refer to MB, when they actually mean MP. Looking at a detailed Properties list for each file type, I see that images shot as RAW files have an actual file size of 27.66MB (29,000,049) and are 24MP resolution. Images shot as JPG's are 18.5MB (19,394,782) with the same resolution. If I open an [U]embedded[/U] JPG from within a RAW file, then save it directly, it has a file size of 5.9MB and a resolution of 24MP. Given that the camera uses its own software to convert the RAW file to an embedded JPG, it would seem that this does involve some significant compression. Having got that far, I'm not quite so confused as I was previously and can see that the answer to my original question is that the embedded JPG is [U]not[/U] a direct or adequate substitute for one shot directly. Phew! [/QUOTE]

Verification