Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I guess my take on all this is to take a file from a 6mp camera, upsample it in Photoshop (or better yet some other program such as qimage which has better upsampling routines) so that you have a 24" x 36" 720 dpi image, copy it onto a CF card or CD and get it printed at a quality service bureau. Do the same with a 16mp camera. Compare the two prints. Forget what the magazine photo editor wants, that's a whole different issue. If you have to obey his commands, fine, but he still may be full of horse c***. Decide for yourself which is better. I've already decided. RAW files are generally smaller than the corresponding bitmap they represent. For instance, my 5mp Minolta Dimage 7 produces 14 meg TIF files, but the RAW files are 9 meg. And people complain because apparently they should actually be smaller, more like 6 meg, but Minolta wasn't very efficient in the way they created their RAW files. -dan c. At 10:39 PM 21-09-04 -0400, Don Dory wrote: >You all ask how big the files are? Well the rule of thumb is an >expanded RAW file is three times bigger, three times 16 is 48 so your >full frame files after your RAW conversion will hit close to 50 MB. > [snip]