Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 433466" data-attributes="member: 12496">That is not the same point though.&nbsp; Most any feasible and useful output (print or video, anything short of Lucas Labs) will be 8 bits, which is very adequate for output. But the&nbsp; point of 16 bit TIF input is that it has some of the advantage of 12 or 14&nbsp; bit Raw&nbsp; (the bitwise advantage, but NOT the other Raw advantages).&nbsp; The purpose of more bits is only while editing (mostly helps&nbsp; drastic editing shifts).&nbsp;&nbsp; Then of course 8 bits output for print or video (video meaning monitors).But 8 bit RGB is 3 bytes per pixel.&nbsp;&nbsp; For 36&nbsp; megapixels, that's 108 MB files.&nbsp; And lossless compression is not incredibly efficient like is JPG.&nbsp; And camera TIF is not compressed anyway.&nbsp; &nbsp; And it's only 8 bits... the ONLY advantage of TIF over JPG is no JPG artifacts.&nbsp; &nbsp; Otherwise (if 8 bits), all the same issues. The only difference is compression, and arbitrary file format issues.TIF has advantages, mostly of saving in-work steps losslessly (avoiding accumulating JPG artifacts).&nbsp; And TIF defines more format options, like CMYK color is generally used commercially, but which does not apply to camera images. And for example, our raw files are simply specialized TIF format (with new data definitions only readable by raw software).&nbsp; But I can't imagine anyone using camera TIF files.&nbsp; 12 bit raw is vastly more feasible, 1.5 bytes&nbsp; per pixel, and of course all the lossless editing advantages too.&nbsp;&nbsp; If&nbsp; you then do want 8 or 16 bit TIF, it is an easy output from raw.It can be said that raw software generally can edit TIF and JPG files as lossless edits. There are&nbsp; advantages, but of course, if you have the software, you optimally would just use raw files instead.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Raw files do not have to first undo what the camera controls already did, no shifting back and forth.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 433466, member: 12496"] That is not the same point though. Most any feasible and useful output (print or video, anything short of Lucas Labs) will be 8 bits, which is very adequate for output. But the point of 16 bit TIF input is that it has some of the advantage of 12 or 14 bit Raw (the bitwise advantage, but NOT the other Raw advantages). The purpose of more bits is only while editing (mostly helps drastic editing shifts). Then of course 8 bits output for print or video (video meaning monitors). But 8 bit RGB is 3 bytes per pixel. For 36 megapixels, that's 108 MB files. And lossless compression is not incredibly efficient like is JPG. And camera TIF is not compressed anyway. And it's only 8 bits... the ONLY advantage of TIF over JPG is no JPG artifacts. Otherwise (if 8 bits), all the same issues. The only difference is compression, and arbitrary file format issues. TIF has advantages, mostly of saving in-work steps losslessly (avoiding accumulating JPG artifacts). And TIF defines more format options, like CMYK color is generally used commercially, but which does not apply to camera images. And for example, our raw files are simply specialized TIF format (with new data definitions only readable by raw software). But I can't imagine anyone using camera TIF files. 12 bit raw is vastly more feasible, 1.5 bytes per pixel, and of course all the lossless editing advantages too. If you then do want 8 or 16 bit TIF, it is an easy output from raw. It can be said that raw software generally can edit TIF and JPG files as lossless edits. There are advantages, but of course, if you have the software, you optimally would just use raw files instead. :) Raw files do not have to first undo what the camera controls already did, no shifting back and forth. [/QUOTE]

Verification