From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 16:22:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <180220181622493789%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <p6alqc$sk5$> <170220182050480435%nospam@nospam.invalid> <n0lmy7amjq04$> <170220182135361720%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1sucv1hqkm69j.1srj76gl8tuo7$> <> <180220181343300250%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <p6ck4i$shd$> <> <p6cq04$a3i$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="f27371b47fa0810c2f5bf1df9177a55e";
logging-data="16510"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18GwzzFHj/aGHsqfMlOhtGZ"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xgb8kFbRvHt0qx0qGFc74YhQVAg=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <p6cq04$a3i$>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | These days I use NEF, RAF, TIFF, and even JPEG.
>    We discussed this before. TIF is usually just a
> compressed bitmap.

tif can be anything, including raw sensor data.

it *can* be compressed, but normally is not.

> On Windows that's BMP.

bmp is not normally compressed.

> I think
> you're getting hung up on the "BMP" and "bitmap"
> terminology. A raster image is a bitmap. Those two
> terms are synonymous.

more accurately, you are assuming bmp is the same as a bitmap (or more
accurately, a pixel map) in memory.

>   When you work on photos those are raster images.
> Raster formats are bitmap storage formats. TIF, JPG,
> PNG are not something different. They're just different
> storage packages for bitmaps.

storage package being a file on disk.

*not* in memory.

> TIF can be many
> things, but typically it's just a zipped 24-bit bitmap.

no it isn't.

> So
> I use TIF and BMP to store images I intend to work on.
> It would be absurd to store as JPG. It'sd profoundly
> ill-suited to the job. Famiarity doesn't make it a
> good format.

billions of jpeg photos disagree with you.

>   BMP is easier for me than TIF if I have the space.
> It's the basic image. And the image shows as an icon
> in folders, which is handy. (I don't like having image
> files show as thumbnails.)

you're using primitive software.

>   You use TIF. Basically the same thing.It's all bitmaps.
> Why is that so hard to grok? What do you think your
> filters in Photoshop are doing when you do something
> like increase saturation? They're just applying a math
> formula to the pixel values in the bitmap. That operation
> is exactly the same whether it's BMP, TIF, or JPG. The
> only difference is where you got the bitmap from and
> where you're saving it to.

photoshop can open bmp, tiff, jpeg and many other formats, but
internally, it uses a *different* structure.

>     You can keep your beer
> in a frig or a cooler. It's still beer. The frig is more
> dependable. The cooler is more mobile. Those are
> just the packaging that keeps it cool. Beer is beer.
> Pixels are pixels.
>   In this case, if you keep your beer in a BMP or TIF
> you're OK. If the image is still in RAW that's fine.
> But if you store it as JPG you're skunking your
> beer. Before long it won't be worth drinking. :)

not a good analogy.

>    It gets confusing when we try to translate
> to Apple

yet another thing you fail to understand, and because you have a stick
up your ass about all things apple, you won't ever learn.

no translating is necessary because apple supports industry standard

> because Macs are targetted at very
> non-tech oriented people. 



> A webpage I came across
> in trying to find what Apple calls a bitmap was
> not at all informative because Apple assumes you
> don't want to understand the details. 

you didn't look very hard.

> (And Lord Jobs
> felt strongly that you shouldn't understand the
> details. Of course, he didn't himself, so that makes
> sense.)

he understood a *lot* more than you ever will.

>    I didn't see anything listed there as being an
> Apple version of a basic bitmap file. So maybe
> Apple doesn't have such a thing.

more accurately, you don't understand what to even look for, which is
why you didn't find it, along with your misguided hatred for apple.

> But I can't tell from
> the descriptions.

it would help if you read the correct descriptions.


that's the final cut pro user manual, not what mac os uses, but
regardless, you'll see among the file formats listed: