3 ms·

The problem is camera marketing makes it really unclear what you're actually getting. Really lossless? Does it trigger more on-body processing? Does it throw

by mlyle 1y ago

The problem is camera marketing makes it really unclear what you're actually getting. Really lossless? Does it trigger more on-body processing? Does it throw away bits to be "visually lossless"? If you shoot a few thousand photos and then find you can't fix exposure as well as you'd hoped and the whole batch is worse, it's a pretty big disappointment, so it's smart to be risk adverse and skeptical.

jcynix 1y ago
>The problem is camera marketing [...] IMHO marketing is almost always (part of) the problem. They shouldn't drink or smoke that stuff … Equating "lossless" with "visually lossless" or some other phrase is newspeak. We could call a JPEG of quality >= 95 (or 96 .. 99) visually lossless too then. Losslessness is easy to define: compress something, then uncompress it again and both the original and the uncompressed file should compute to the same (cryptographic) checksum.