>The problem is camera marketing [...] IMHO marketing is almost always (part of) the problem. They shouldn't drink or smoke that stuff … Equating "lossless" w

>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.