Helpful Posts: Certainly, George.Originally Posted by george013
For your images in order of posting, according to JPEGsnoop:
1 10.57:1, 4:2:0 (2x2)
2 5.18:1, 4:2:0 (2x2)
3 24.61:1, 4:2:2 (2x1)
4 5.04:1, 4:2:0 (2x2)
5 5.04:1, 4:2:0 (2x2)
6 11.51:1, 4:2:0 (2x2)
Best Regards
Results 81 to 83 of 83
-
18th June 2017, 07:35 PM #81
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 6,956
- Real Name
- Ted
Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW
-
18th June 2017, 08:52 PM #82
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- New England
- Posts
- 8,631
- Real Name
- Dan
Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW
I can no longer track what the argument is about, and I find this tone inappropriate. Mods--is it time to shut this thread down?A bit pissed about Mike's post saying he did do some tests. He posed some assumptions in it without clarifying what he meant. A wrong way of discussing.
So here some tests of mine with the explanation.
-
18th June 2017, 10:07 PM #83Moderator
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
- Posts
- 21,947
- Real Name
- Manfred Mueller
Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW
I agree with Dan here and I would ask the members to be civil to one another in their postings. Quite a number of the latest postings may be of interest to some, but will do little to help Brian and his original question.
I am shutting this thread down, unless anyone has any objections. If so please PM me if you disagree.
