On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

I did shoot these in RAW with no compression on the RAW. I use a batch
conversion macro in Lightroom (I think), and had it set up 640x480 size
with auto sharpen Landscape. I have never seen a jpg compression ratio,
I thought jpg just compressed it as much as possible. I also have never
used a batch conversion before, and never reduce the size so small, so I
really don't know if this is the result to expect or not.

Mr. Duck provided the explanation.

This is something that has annoyed me for quite a while now. You
would think that the camera manufacturers would get together and come
up with a standard RAW format that everybody could use at a base
level. Like open source software kind of thing. Each manufacturer
could add something of "theirs" for their specific camera, but you
could cross platforms if they got their act together.

If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have
never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW
output.

Morons.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:36:21 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:19:32 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

I did shoot these in RAW with no compression on the RAW. I use a batch
conversion macro in Lightroom (I think), and had it set up 640x480 size
with auto sharpen Landscape. I have never seen a jpg compression ratio,
I thought jpg just compressed it as much as possible. I also have never
used a batch conversion before, and never reduce the size so small, so I
really don't know if this is the result to expect or not.

Mr. Duck provided the explanation.

This is something that has annoyed me for quite a while now. You
would think that the camera manufacturers would get together and come
up with a standard RAW format that everybody could use at a base
level. Like open source software kind of thing. Each manufacturer
could add something of "theirs" for their specific camera, but you
could cross platforms if they got their act together.

If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have
never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW
output.

Morons.

No ****.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have
never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW
output.

Morons.


http://www.eisboch.com/gotmail00.wav

http://www.eisboch.com/gotmail06.wav

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:53:21 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have
never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW
output.

Morons.

http://www.eisboch.com/gotmail00.wav

http://www.eisboch.com/gotmail06.wav

NNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

On Nov 29, 4:36*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have
never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW
output.

Morons.

I'd say that's one reason they are dropping photo hosting.

They'll probably tank in a couple years.

Tim wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:36 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
If AOL hadn't of been pricks with their .GIF format, we would have
never seen .jpeg and all of it's attendent problems with handling RAW
output.

Morons.

I'd say that's one reason they are dropping photo hosting.

They'll probably tank in a couple years.


It's been at least a year since an AOL signup CD has fallen out of any
magazines I've purchased. I took that as a good sign.