Stef63 Posted October 6, 2013 Share #21 Posted October 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mathematical concepts have the annoying property that they don't care whether you like them or not. I told you this thread would be fun It reminds me this phrase : "There are only 10 types of people in the world; those that understand binary, and those that don't. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Hi Stef63, Take a look here M240 compressed DNG. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
algrove Posted October 6, 2013 Share #22 Posted October 6, 2013 So how would you all feel one day to find out that your compressed files cannot do what my uncompressed files can do with Adobe LR105.2? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 6, 2013 Share #23 Posted October 6, 2013 This would confirm, if need be, that between those who believe that life can be reduced to numbers and the rest of us the latters are true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 6, 2013 Share #24 Posted October 6, 2013 A lossless audio file like a lossless image file is an exact copy of the original. You can not see or hear the difference. If you can, something else is in play in your reproduction chain. But, it has nothing to do with the fact the original information was stored in a lossless format. Can we finally put this to rest? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted October 6, 2013 Share #25 Posted October 6, 2013 So how would you all feel one day to find out that your compressed files cannot do what my uncompressed files can do with Adobe LR105.2? I would just convert them back to uncompressed DNG and be happy about all the terabytes of storage that I didn't have to buy decades ago when it was so much more expensive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 6, 2013 Share #26 Posted October 6, 2013 I would just convert them back to uncompressed DNG [...] Is that possible? And what would you gain in conversion? Nothing was taken away in compression, right? and be happy about all the terabytes of storage that I didn't have to buy decades ago when it was so much more expensive. Storage is dirt-cheap today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 6, 2013 Share #27 Posted October 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) pico, tongue in cheek alert. Read roey again, he is on your side. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted October 6, 2013 Share #28 Posted October 6, 2013 Is that possible? And what would you gain in conversion? Nothing was taken away in compression, right? Of course it is possible. You wouldn't gain or lose anything. I was just replying to algrove's question. If, in our hypothetical scenario, there wasn't already an app available for this I would be even happier: I would launch a DNG conversion service and charge all of you a buck per photo Storage is dirt-cheap today. It will be even cheaper (or free) then. With a decent backup strategy you need to store every image multiple times. Let's say you save on average 10MB per photo (does anybody know the uncompressed size of M240 DNGs?). Times four (for backups) that's 40MB per photo. Say you keep 5,000 photos a year that would mean (if my math is correct) you save 200GB storage space per year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted October 6, 2013 Share #29 Posted October 6, 2013 pico, tongue in cheek alert. Read roey again, he is on your side. There was nothing tongue in cheek in my post. I am not sure what pico's side is. My side is: I save all my DNGs with lossless compression. I have done so for years with the M8 and M9 (I shot uncompressed and had LR convert to losslessly compressed DNG on import). Now the camera does it for me automatically. I appreciate that. I know that I am not losing anything with lossless DNG. The format and algorithm are well understood and documented. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 6, 2013 Share #30 Posted October 6, 2013 There was nothing tongue in cheek in my post. I am not sure what pico's side is. My side is: I save all my DNGs with lossless compression. I have done so for years with the M8 and M9 (I shot uncompressed and had LR convert to losslessly compressed DNG on import). Now the camera does it for me automatically. I appreciate that. I know that I am not losing anything with lossless DNG. The format and algorithm are well understood and documented. pico has been saying for a long time that lossless is lossless. He didn't understand your point about the fact that you can switch a lossless file back to uncompressed and it would be the same... he thought you meant that the switch back to uncompressed was better. Again, maybe you didn't understand that your comment was a little tongue and cheeck and I guess neither did pico. All's good. We (pico and I) get it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 6, 2013 Share #31 Posted October 6, 2013 I sense more differences between AIFF and MOV files than between TIF and 100% JPEG. TIF format supports both lossless and lossy (JPEG) compression, so a file being in TIF format says nothing about whether and how the data was compressed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 6, 2013 Share #32 Posted October 6, 2013 TIF format supports both lossless and lossy (JPEG) compression, so a file being in TIF format says nothing about whether and how the data was compressed. True at the directory view of a TIFF file, but a bit-wise inspection of the file reveals the method of compression, of course, and all viewing software knows how to unwind TIFF. Oi! I do not think I added anything with this post Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 6, 2013 Share #33 Posted October 6, 2013 So how would you all feel one day to find out that your compressed files cannot do what my uncompressed files can do with Adobe LR105.2? The human race would have become extinct long before. Perhaps you think that the next dominant species with access to LR 105.2 may be interested in your photos? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 6, 2013 Share #34 Posted October 6, 2013 So how would you all feel one day to find out that your compressed files cannot do what my uncompressed files can do with Adobe LR105.2? Short of a post-apocalyptic scenario in which nobody would care about Lightroom or Adobe anyway, the chances for that happening are nil. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 7, 2013 Share #35 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) TIF format supports both lossless and lossy (JPEG) compression, so a file being in TIF format says nothing about whether and how the data was compressed. I said that i sense more differences between AIFF and MOV files than between TIF and 100% JPEG. And i'm not alone. Computer Audio Asylum. Edited October 7, 2013 by lct Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 7, 2013 Share #36 Posted October 7, 2013 I said that i sense more differences between AIFF and MOV files than between TIF and 100% JPEG. And i'm not alone. Computer Audio Asylum. lct, You linked to a non-scientific site that seems to be a bunch of people on an audiophile forum posting opinions. What am I to make of this and you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 7, 2013 Share #37 Posted October 7, 2013 Just that i share those opinions about the so-called lossless audio format. I would have been glad to challenge some certainties about compressed DNG files as well but i don't see significant differences with uncompressed ones to be honest. Now Lou's reasoning sounds interesting to me from an intellectual standpoint at least. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 7, 2013 Share #38 Posted October 7, 2013 Just that i share those opinions about the so-called lossless audio format. I would have been glad to challenge some certainties about compressed DNG files as well but i don't see significant differences with uncompressed ones to be honest. Now Lou's reasoning sounds interesting to me from an intellectual standpoint at least. And some at Adobe also, from what I gather and understand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted October 7, 2013 Share #39 Posted October 7, 2013 So how would you all feel one day to find out that your compressed files cannot do what my uncompressed files can do with Adobe LR105.2? Since they are lossless compressed files, we will simply reconstruct the original file from the compressed. Then we can anything you can do. I have no doubt that if LR105.2 can process an uncompressed DNG from 2013 it will also be able to process the compressed DNG. However, at that time, people may ask why we would ever have digitized our crude (having been filtered thru a red, green and blue grid) image information and then stored that on silicon chips or worse... rotating magnetic disks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MirekE Posted October 8, 2013 Share #40 Posted October 8, 2013 So how would you all feel one day to find out that your compressed files cannot do what my uncompressed files can do with Adobe LR105.2? It can be also the other way around. If everyone will be using DNG compression at that time, the developers/product managers can decide not to maintain code that handles obsolete uncompressed DNG and remove the feature from the application. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.