RAW prints

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:30:35 -0800, nospam <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <190220081930352963%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <0n4nr39lqs4k163ppmndusb503r9ett0c0 DeleteThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >even getting beyond his twisting it, printers don't use red, green and
>> >blue inks.
>>
>> 3 color Ink printers use secondary (complementary) colors yellow,
>> magenta and cyan, which are easily mapped from primary colors red, green
>> and blue -- each secondary color is produced by equal amounts of two
>> primaries. More to the point, light printers do use red, green and
>> blue, which could be directly mapped to the Bayer sensor pattern.
>
>inkjet printers use 4 or more inks (5-6 on most photo printers), none
>of which are red, green or blue, nor would anyone possibly consider
>looking at individual dots. the whole concept is just absurd.

Notwithstanding your confusion, the whole concept of digital printing
and display is in fact made up of dots of particular colors, and there
are in fact printers with just three color inks.
<http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/color_printer.html>:

Some lower-price printers use only three colors -- cyan, magenta, and
yellow...

If a Bayer pattern is reproduced in the same tiny dots (not big dots),
you would see an apparent full color image, just as you do when you look
at a TV screen. Think about that carefully before answering to avoid
further embarrassment.

>> >plus, the original claim was referring to the bayer grid
>> >being overlaid, before it was demosaiced into an image.
>>
>> Sorry, but I can't make sense of that.
>
>read up on how bayer works. it's actually fairly obvious.

Sorry, but it's not. I can only assume you're not only confused about
how it works, but also about whatever you mean by "the original claim".

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:09:20 -0800 (PST), Alan Meyer <ameyer2 DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
wrote in
<50e830cb-5568-4df0-be46-efc6f5ea1320 DeleteThis @71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

>On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, John Navas <spamfilt... DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> As others have written, use high-quality JPEG, or better yet, use a
>> lossless format like TIFF or PNG if the service supports that.
>> ...
>
>I'm not sure that TIFF, PNG, or high quality JPEG would look any
>better in the printout than a medium quality JPEG that is good
>enough that there are no apparent color changes or compression
>artifacts. I would expect a 10:1 JPEG compression would be
>just as good as an uncompressed format for printing purposes,
>and even 20:1 might work okay, unless there is much fine color
>detail in the image.
>
>It may be that my old eyes aren't up to the chore, but I can't
>see the difference between a TIFF and a 10:1 JPEG on a
>screen unless I blow up the image to look at individual pixels.
>Since printers are don't discriminate as well as good monitors,
>I'd think that if you can't see it on the screen, you won't see it
>in a printout either.

They aren't really comparable because the technology is totally
different.

What matters is the quality and resolution of the printer, the quality
and resolution of the image, and the desired result.

Why take a chance on good enough? It's just as easy to produce lossless
images for printing as lossy images, and storage space is a non-issue.

When I'm just going to make small or non-critical prints, I do often use
high-quality JPEG. But when I'm going to make high-quality
enlargements, I tend to upsample with Genuine Fractals and use lossless
format if the service supports it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

On 2/20/08 12:19 AM, in article ldhnr35upt8cld5ab4qj0equvb5f3k83q3.RemoveThis@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> It's not me that's confused.
Oh GAWD! The IRONY!!!!
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints