Whither goest us?

[gsgary]

Well my prints are made in my darkroom, i got fed up of the digital bullshit

 

[soufiej]

If there is so much wrong you don't know where to begin, please, begin somewhere.

Jpeg and MP3 are both lossy digital formats designed for maximum storage space and not high fidelity to the recorded source. Lossy formats mean data points are discarded. Many data points since digital itself is less than a full waveform storage media. Discarded data cannot be retrieved to more accurately reconstruct the actual live event when a lossy format is employed. The algorithms are making corrections in either format, Mpeg or Jpeg, which are very consistently identical for each data package. The same processing of data tends to give the same results within the boundaries of the lossy format. Future generations are unable to see or hear what actually took place when all they have to work with are lossy formats. We as a society are accepting the dumbing down of media.

You can't view a RAW file? You can't listen to a WAV file either. You must rely on the processing algorithms which reconstruct the digital data into an analog output in either case. I think I'm missing your point as much as you have missed my own. This isn't a discussion about the quality of digital media, it is a matter of whether we are going to strive for the most accurate data reconstruction available or settle for lots of data but very low fidelity quality.

 

[Buckster]

Is there a phone camera which can work in RAW format? To my knowledge, the answer is still, "No, there is not"

How Android 5.0 lets you get raw for better photos - CNET

 

[runnah]

Is there a phone camera which can work in RAW format? To my knowledge, the answer is still, "No, there is not"

How Android 5.0 lets you get raw for better photos - CNET

Thank god! My mirror selfies where certainly lacking quality.

 

[fjrabon]

If there is so much wrong you don't know where to begin, please, begin somewhere.

Jpeg and MP3 are both lossy digital formats designed for maximum storage space and not high fidelity to the recorded source. Lossy formats mean data points are discarded. Many data points since digital itself is less than a full waveform storage media. Discarded data cannot be retrieved to more accurately reconstruct the actual live event when a lossy format is employed. The algorithms are making corrections in either format, Mpeg or Jpeg, which are very consistently identical for each data package. The same processing of data tends to give the same results within the boundaries of the lossy format. Future generations are unable to see or hear what actually took place when all they have to work with are lossy formats. We as a society are accepting the dumbing down of media.

You can't view a RAW file? You can't listen to a WAV file either. You must rely on the processing algorithms which reconstruct the digital data into an analog output in either case. I think I'm missing your point as much as you have missed my own. This isn't a discussion about the quality of digital media, it is a matter of whether we are going to strive for the most accurate data reconstruction available or settle for lots of data but very low fidelity quality.

No, you're not getting it. RAW files aren't even pictures, they're essentially just a recording of sensor data. They have to be converted to another format. A RAW file is digital negative, a JPEG is a digital image, one is viewable and the other is not. You can't view a raw image, no matter what program you use, it *has* to be converted. RAW files, for example, don't record a white balanced image. A raw file would literally have no color. RAW files also capture dynamic range that is higher than can be displayed. They also capture UV wavelengths. They capture everything the sensor records. When you open up a raw file in your post program you're looking at a JPEG that your converter generated. RAW is not a displayable format. JPEG, on the other hand is a positive digital image and can be viewed without conversion as long as you have a display. It's like you're comparing a negative to a print when you compare raw to JPEG.

You also confused data compression in MP3s with dynamic compression in audio terms, which aren't the same things. MP3 in no way compresses audio in dynamics.

also: "Three dimensional images holographically projected onto a virtual soundstage are only available through the highest fidelity to the source." is complete bunk. You can absolutely play a binaural recording in mp3 just as you can with a wav. To the extent soundstage is real it's just as apparent in high bitrate mp3 as it is in wav. I own a pair of Sennheiser HD650s, I used to own a pair of Stax. I was a sound guy for James Brown. I know lots of engineers and none of them will agree with the assertions you made about mp3. They think audiophiles are people who just hate money and give it to people who make gold cables for no reason.

Further, to the extent that you can tell the difference from mp3 and lossless, the difference actually is more apparent on low fidelity sound equipment, this is sort of complicated, it has to do with how human hearing work and how bad sound equipment actually makes the mp3 encoding algorithms cease to work, but you can go over on head-fi and ask any of the people who really know what they're talking about if you want (jude mansilla, for example).

Have you ever tried to blind differentiate between 320kbps mp3 and wav? To my knowledge no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between 320 kbps mp3 and wav (or any other format for that matter).

Now yes, lossless has its place, for archival purposes. I totally agree there. What I was saying originally is that I wanted to agree with you, but almost all of your factual assertions you used for support were incorrect, you believed the right things for the wrong reasons.

Where I will disagree is that we need lossless format for viewing. JPEG fine holds more information than a screen or printer can display and higher definition than the human eye can discern anyway. 320 kbps mp3 is better than humans ability to hear. If you need an archival record, great, use lossless. If you just want to look at pictures or listen to music, JPEG and MP3 of sufficient quality are fine.

This has gotten way down into minutiae, but you asked.

 

[Torus34]

@soufiej:

Hi!

You've posted in detail on the different methods of recording photographic digital data. It's true that some of the current methods are 'lossy' -- not all of the data in the original scan of the sensor is retained. It has a parallel of sorts in digital vs. analog methods of recording music. There are some who swear by tape and vinyl on grounds similar to your interest in RAW files. And this pocm* finds absolutely nothing wrong with seeking the best methodology.

Translated into film photography, this would cause us to strive for the finest grain film and developers and large-format rigs. And it has, btw. I still reach for my 120 tlr for certain types of photographs though most often I tote a 35mm.

We shouldn't, though, lose sight of the many absolutely stunning works of photography accomplished with gear that by today's standards wouldn't even rate a disdainful sniff from the technologically savvy. Good prints, as opposed to snapshots, should say something more than "I am the most accurate representation of the original scene possible with today's technology." This is nicely embodied in the goal of the portraitist: to create an image which is "more than just a likeness." It remains possible to make great prints today with equipment that's far from optimal.

Hope this didn't read like a lecture.

Regards.

*Poor old country mouse.

 

[soufiej]

Buckster, thanks for answering my question. As I said in my post, to my knowledge, RAW had not been available from a phone camera. I am not someone who follows the smartphone market though. IMO when phone cameras can operate in RAW format, there is one more chink in the armor of DSLR's to be considered. We will then get down to the minutea of how a "photographer" thinks rather than how the camera operates when these perennial issues of which is which come up. Those arguments will become far more difficult to sustain in the future IMO.

*

fjrabon wrote: "This has gotten way down into minutiae, but you asked."

And I still disagree with your assertions. This sort of discussion however can easily tip into the objectivist (numbers tell me all I need to know) camps and the subjectivist (my ears inform what I understand from the numbers) camps of audio.

Saying, (to your knowledge) "no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between 320 kbps mp3 and wav (or any other format for that matter)", is an objectivist dog whistle. First, yes, people can and do differentiate between low bit rate and high bit rate music files. The existence of higher than 16 bit files says many, many people can hear the difference and will pay for that difference. The record labels themself have been producing these "better than CD quality" recordings almost since the dawn of digital recordings back in the 1970's when listener's complained about their "Digitally Mastered" LP's sounding harsh and non-musical. The swing to upsampled formats as high as 192-196kHz file size say this has been common knowledge since the turn of this century. 24 bit files are the "hot" items for downloads and more and more external DAC's are being produced to handle these and DSD (Super Audio CD) mastered files. We'll see whether Neil Young's new "audiophile" portable player has any impact on the market but certainly its development into a real world product suggests there are people who can perceive improvements in sound quality and musical values when higher than 320kbps files are in place.

No, the objectivist crowd doesn't care to simply listen as a subjectivist listens. Objectivists throw out numbers which tell them all they need to know and that's the end of their discussion and their thought process. Then they say things like "no one can detect the difference between ... " any number of values and components and expect people to just accept their BS. But people do detect differences. And they are bothered by the lack of reality - the literal gaps in information - which exist in archived files. This is a "I know what I know and I don't need your facts to know you're wrong" type of argument on your part. Who you worked for or who you think agrees with you is a simple argument from authority that doesn't hold water. I've worked in high end audio on both the consumer and professional side for over thirty years and I can name more than a few subjective listeners in professional audio and design who whole hearted disagree with you. I've fought the battles on the audio forums with those who hear the name of these subjectivist writers and immediately dismiss the facts due to the name. You are perfectly free to believe what you care to believe, I'm not here to do battle on this forum. However, ...

Mpeg and Jpeg are lossy formats. Fact. Data is discarded in favor of file size. Fact. Those are plain and simple facts which are verified by any quick search for the format concepts. Lossy file formats are not preferred for viewing or listening when musical/image qualities are the goal. If you are listening through headphones and wanting to tell me about holographic imaging, I would say you literally need to take the blinders off your ears and listen through a pair of Wilson speakers to perceive holographic imaging no headset can duplicate.

Take a quick poll of those photographers on this forum if you think I'm wrong. How many photographers here would archive their photos only in Jpeg format? How many would show their images in Jpeg for more than, say, social media use? My guess is very few to none. Would you say, "To my knowledge no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between
Jpeg and RAW format files"? I doubt it since you would be jumped on like a goose on a June bug if you suggested such on this forum.

If that were not a fact, why then do the camera reviews indicate the obvious differences between the Jpeg and the RAW formatting of a camera? Surely there must be more of a reason than they simply need to fill pages with inconsequential drivel which matters to no one.

Well, let's try that. Anyone here actually show your photos in Jpeg format for your best efforts? Who here has portfolios full of JPeg shots?

The point I'm making, which you are dancing around, remains, Jpeg, Mpeg or any lossy format are not suitable for archival purposes. Data is lost in a lossy file format. Fact. Data package size is compressed. Fact. That's simply logical and factually correct. If you feel Mpeg doesn't compress dynamic range, you are thinking very narrowly. Given the basic fact sample rates are lower and the reconstruction algorithms must interpolate more broadly between data points, where Mpeg shows one of its greatest weaknesses is in the micro-dynamic range. Now I will tell you to ask any musician, what provides one player their style versus another player reading the same sheet music? Given the same notes and chord progressions and the same time signature and tempo, one musician's style differs greatly in the micro-dynamic shadings they place on each note. The subtle inflections and hesitations, the holding of a note or the way a single note is bent and released are major contributors to any one musician's "style". Mpeg's lossy compression does away with those "micro-momentary" differentiations. The algorithms which compress and then read and reconstruct the data points cannot possibly contain those smaller timing differences, the smallest dynamic range differences, when they are simply tossed out during the process of conversion to a lossy file format. This is where anyone listening to a Mpeg file who is familiar with the workings of a live musical event will say compressed files for the sake of file size are not adequate. We can debate whether the WAV format, which was grown out of virtual whole cloth from Nyquist's 1930's theories on digital systems, can even contain sufficient data to adequately convey these dynamic shadings. Many who favor higher than CD sampling rates and larger bit files would say they are not since Nyquist had only on paper theories available to support his math. 22kHz brick wall filters, anyone? But since the dawn of CD's in the early 1980's there have been extensive efforts made to provide "better than CD quality" digital recording systems just simply because people do hear an improvement when files sizes are larger and more densely packed. When more samples are available to be read and sample rates are raised to move the artifacts of the system farther away from the musical content. Upsampling minimizes the phase and time errors of CD quality files which are of significantly improved quality over any lossy Mpeg file system. FACT!

The same holds true for Jpeg formatting in photography. Jpeg by design discards information in the least significant bit range. It, like Mpeg, covers up and smooths over the least important data points according to the algorithms which support the compression system. In Mpeg, if a tuba and a horn are playing loudly, a violin and a piccolo playing softly are considered insignificant data points and they are minimized if not fully discarded. This is all based on studies of how humans hear and applied to all humans everywhere regardless. We can even argue about blind testing if you'd like, I'm against it. It's the same situation as we see in these endless discussions of "which picture looks better?" In normal real world conditions, people do not listen or look with the question in their mind, is this better or worse than something else? Once you change how someone sees and hears, you change the results of what they see and hear.

Mpeg exists simply to allow more storage capacity, not for quality purposes. Fact. Jpeg does similar compression of data in the least significant bits of data for an image. Shadow details are discarded along with smaller bits of detail/highlights which give us the whole image rather than a cartoon like formatted image. The uniformity of both Mpeg and Jpeg from file to file is the result of the algorithms dictating the result. Like shooting in full auto mode or recording to a cassette tape. The more aware the user is to the deficiencies of the format, the less likely they are to use that format. Fact. How many albums do you own which were mastered on a cassette?

We may end up simply disagreeing on this issue since we seem to be coming at this from different viewpoints which we both feel are valid.

Therefore, I'll simply ask you a few brief questions.

Do you shoot in RAW? If so, why? Do you know a professional photographer who doesn't work with RAW files when they are showing their best efforts?

What, in your opinion, is the real world value of a lossy file format such as Jpeg?

 

[pixmedic]

the "real world value of a lossy file format such as Jpeg" is simple.
web viewing on social media sites.
(or, for that matter, uploading to any site that has file size restrictions...like, oh i dunno...TPF for instance...where you cant upload a 30mb file.)
small format prints.
viewing on phones or tablets.
emailing or texting pictures.
proofing sets.

there's probably more...but its early and i haven't had enough caffeine yet to think of any.

OH, and yes.. i know a real professional that shoots jpeg.
Imagemaker46 (scott) who has been doing sports photography for many many many years, at many prestigious venues....shoots jpeg.

 

[soufiej]

@soufiej:

Hi!

You've posted in detail on the different methods of recording photographic digital data. It's true that some of the current methods are 'lossy' -- not all of the data in the original scan of the sensor is retained. It has a parallel of sorts in digital vs. analog methods of recording music. There are some who swear by tape and vinyl on grounds similar to your interest in RAW files. And this pocm* finds absolutely nothing wrong with seeking the best methodology.

Translated into film photography, this would cause us to strive for the finest grain film and developers and large-format rigs. And it has, btw. I still reach for my 120 tlr for certain types of photographs though most often I tote a 35mm.

We shouldn't, though, lose sight of the many absolutely stunning works of photography accomplished with gear that by today's standards wouldn't even rate a disdainful sniff from the technologically savvy. Good prints, as opposed to snapshots, should say something more than "I am the most accurate representation of the original scene possible with today's technology." This is nicely embodied in the goal of the portraitist: to create an image which is "more than just a likeness." It remains possible to make great prints today with equipment that's far from optimal.

Hope this didn't read like a lecture.

Regards.

*Poor old country mouse.

Since my interests in audio and music reproduction go back well into the 1960's, I have made a few guidelines for myself over the years. "Priorities", if you will. Actually, if I get into a discussion with someone who favors strict "accuracy" in audio reproduction, I'm generally not in favor of such an approach. Only though, on the grounds that accuracy is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. What I find to be accurate musically is unlikely to be exactly what you or another might think to be accurate. I listen to 78's and I am in awe of the sheer reality of all performers playing together, listening to one another together, playing off the lead of one or more players to create a once and only once performance. Like photography IMO, the event has been captured and that is what is most important to me.

In high end audio, a benchmark for "high fidelity" to the live source has long been the Mercury Living Presence series. Recorded in the mid to late '50's and into the early '60's, these were meticulously crafted recordings using, for a full symphony orchestra, only three microphones. The performers played as if they were in front of a live audience. If a mistake was made, the recording was stopped and the performers began again from the top. The old tape was discarded for fear of bleed though so no record exists of what occurred prior to the stopping of the recording. Played as if they were in front of a live audience, there are no splices, no edits, no over dubs and no gain riding of levels to spotlight any one musician in these recordings. Hall ambience was abundant and vibrant without overwhelming the direct sounds coming from the stage. Listening to these recordings on a "high fidelity" playback system from any era can cause what one magazine writer termed "the goosebump effect".

The concept of music reproduction eliciting goosebumps has largely gone out of favor with the magazines and the designers/manufacturers of today's high end audio gear. A few still find their reality in the music, many do not. They want accurate equipment first, music second. New comers to audio have no concept what the idea "goosebump effect" means when I mention it to them. Yet the recordings are as much alive today as they were in 1958. They are a time machine backwards to the very moment when they were performed. And it requires tremendous accuracy to pull off the goosebump effect. However, it requires a sort of accuracy which has fallen out of favor with today's recording engineers and today's younger listeners. IMO those musical values encapsulated in the Mercury recordings will remain my hallmark for "accuracy" and not much of the rest really matters to me.

The same is true of my concepts of photography. I have several photos I've taken with less than ideal equipment which are still great shots IMO. Looking at them I do not focus on the poor technical values of the equipment. I see the goosebump effects of a pretty good shot where, despite the technical imperfections, I can look into the past and be taken back to another time. That though is often a differentiation between analog and digital recording of an event. That is another issue all together.

I have mentioned on this forum the package of photos - snapshots really - my aunt took when she was in Cuba before the embargo. Using an inexpensive Brownie, she captured the essence of what is now called "street photography". She had an artist's eye for composition and detail, pulling emotion out of the simplest of situations. I am simply in awe of what she captured in those photos when she didn't even have a decent viewfinder to work with.

I've also mentioned this site on the forum; Emphoka

I go there daily for some inspiration. The submissions to the site are limited to less than DSLR quality shots. I'm always amazed at what can be accomplished when the human eye and the mind's imagination supercedes the equipment.

I am in no way discounting the value of lower quality equipment. It is merely a tool in the hands of the thoughtful user.

That though is not my point when I discuss the lowered value of a lossy file format. I go back to those old 78's, noisy and bandwidth limited as they first seem, which were recorded "direct to disc" and I hear what today's cut and snip, highly processed and reconstructed recordings lack. And I find accuracy to the original event still to be my goosebump inducing value.

 

[fjrabon]

Buckster, thanks for answering my question. As I said in my post, to my knowledge, RAW had not been available from a phone camera. I am not someone who follows the smartphone market though. IMO when phone cameras can operate in RAW format, there is one more chink in the armor of DSLR's to be considered. We will then get down to the minutea of how a "photographer" thinks rather than how the camera operates when these perennial issues of which is which come up. Those arguments will become far more difficult to sustain in the future IMO.

*

fjrabon wrote: "This has gotten way down into minutiae, but you asked."

And I still disagree with your assertions. This sort of discussion however can easily tip into the objectivist (numbers tell me all I need to know) camps and the subjectivist (my ears inform what I understand from the numbers) camps of audio.

Saying, (to your knowledge) "no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between 320 kbps mp3 and wav (or any other format for that matter)", is an objectivist dog whistle. First, yes, people can and do differentiate between low bit rate and high bit rate music files. The existence of higher than 16 bit files says many, many people can hear the difference and will pay for that difference. The record labels themself have been producing these "better than CD quality" recordings almost since the dawn of digital recordings back in the 1970's when listener's complained about their "Digitally Mastered" LP's sounding harsh and non-musical. The swing to upsampled formats as high as 192-196kHz file size say this has been common knowledge since the turn of this century. 24 bit files are the "hot" items for downloads and more and more external DAC's are being produced to handle these and DSD (Super Audio CD) mastered files. We'll see whether Neil Young's new "audiophile" portable player has any impact on the market but certainly its development into a real world product suggests there are people who can perceive improvements in sound quality and musical values when higher than 320kbps files are in place.

No, the objectivist crowd doesn't care to simply listen as a subjectivist listens. Objectivists throw out numbers which tell them all they need to know and that's the end of their discussion and their thought process. Then they say things like "no one can detect the difference between ... " any number of values and components and expect people to just accept their BS. But people do detect differences. And they are bothered by the lack of reality - the literal gaps in information - which exist in archived files. This is a "I know what I know and I don't need your facts to know you're wrong" type of argument on your part. Who you worked for or who you think agrees with you is a simple argument from authority that doesn't hold water. I've worked in high end audio on both the consumer and professional side for over thirty years and I can name more than a few subjective listeners in professional audio and design who whole hearted disagree with you. I've fought the battles on the audio forums with those who hear the name of these subjectivist writers and immediately dismiss the facts due to the name. You are perfectly free to believe what you care to believe, I'm not here to do battle on this forum. However, ...

Mpeg and Jpeg are lossy formats. Fact. Data is discarded in favor of file size. Fact. Those are plain and simple facts which are verified by any quick search for the format concepts. Lossy file formats are not preferred for viewing or listening when musical/image qualities are the goal. If you are listening through headphones and wanting to tell me about holographic imaging, I would say you literally need to take the blinders off your ears and listen through a pair of Wilson speakers to perceive holographic imaging no headset can duplicate.

Take a quick poll of those photographers on this forum if you think I'm wrong. How many photographers here would archive their photos only in Jpeg format? How many would show their images in Jpeg for more than, say, social media use? My guess is very few to none. Would you say, "To my knowledge no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between
Jpeg and RAW format files"? I doubt it since you would be jumped on like a goose on a June bug if you suggested such on this forum.

If that were not a fact, why then do the camera reviews indicate the obvious differences between the Jpeg and the RAW formatting of a camera? Surely there must be more of a reason than they simply need to fill pages with inconsequential drivel which matters to no one.

Well, let's try that. Anyone here actually show your photos in Jpeg format for your best efforts? Who here has portfolios full of JPeg shots?

The point I'm making, which you are dancing around, remains, Jpeg, Mpeg or any lossy format are not suitable for archival purposes. Data is lost in a lossy file format. Fact. Data package size is compressed. Fact. That's simply logical and factually correct. If you feel Mpeg doesn't compress dynamic range, you are thinking very narrowly. Given the basic fact sample rates are lower and the reconstruction algorithms must interpolate more broadly between data points, where Mpeg shows one of its greatest weaknesses is in the micro-dynamic range. Now I will tell you to ask any musician, what provides one player their style versus another player reading the same sheet music? Given the same notes and chord progressions and the same time signature and tempo, one musician's style differs greatly in the micro-dynamic shadings they place on each note. The subtle inflections and hesitations, the holding of a note or the way a single note is bent and released are major contributors to any one musician's "style". Mpeg's lossy compression does away with those "micro-momentary" differentiations. The algorithms which compress and then read and reconstruct the data points cannot possibly contain those smaller timing differences, the smallest dynamic range differences, when they are simply tossed out during the process of conversion to a lossy file format. This is where anyone listening to a Mpeg file who is familiar with the workings of a live musical event will say compressed files for the sake of file size are not adequate. We can debate whether the WAV format, which was grown out of virtual whole cloth from Nyquist's 1930's theories on digital systems, can even contain sufficient data to adequately convey these dynamic shadings. Many who favor higher than CD sampling rates and larger bit files would say they are not since Nyquist had only on paper theories available to support his math. 22kHz brick wall filters, anyone? But since the dawn of CD's in the early 1980's there have been extensive efforts made to provide "better than CD quality" digital recording systems just simply because people do hear an improvement when files sizes are larger and more densely packed. When more samples are available to be read and sample rates are raised to move the artifacts of the system farther away from the musical content. Upsampling minimizes the phase and time errors of CD quality files which are of significantly improved quality over any lossy Mpeg file system. FACT!

The same holds true for Jpeg formatting in photography. Jpeg by design discards information in the least significant bit range. It, like Mpeg, covers up and smooths over the least important data points according to the algorithms which support the compression system. In Mpeg, if a tuba and a horn are playing loudly, a violin and a piccolo playing softly are considered insignificant data points and they are minimized if not fully discarded. This is all based on studies of how humans hear and applied to all humans everywhere regardless. We can even argue about blind testing if you'd like, I'm against it. It's the same situation as we see in these endless discussions of "which picture looks better?" In normal real world conditions, people do not listen or look with the question in their mind, is this better or worse than something else? Once you change how someone sees and hears, you change the results of what they see and hear.

Mpeg exists simply to allow more storage capacity, not for quality purposes. Fact. Jpeg does similar compression of data in the least significant bits of data for an image. Shadow details are discarded along with smaller bits of detail/highlights which give us the whole image rather than a cartoon like formatted image. The uniformity of both Mpeg and Jpeg from file to file is the result of the algorithms dictating the result. Like shooting in full auto mode or recording to a cassette tape. The more aware the user is to the deficiencies of the format, the less likely they are to use that format. Fact. How many albums do you own which were mastered on a cassette?

We may end up simply disagreeing on this issue since we seem to be coming at this from different viewpoints which we both feel are valid.

Therefore, I'll simply ask you a few brief questions.

Do you shoot in RAW? If so, why? Do you know a professional photographer who doesn't work with RAW files when they are showing their best efforts?

What, in your opinion, is the real world value of a lossy file format such as Jpeg?

Yes JPEG is lossy. Studio engineers don't master with Wilsons they master with $400 Yamaha speakers. JPEG is lossy because RAW records more information than can be displayed visually.

Get back to me when you find a blind study where a sufficient sample size could differentiate between 320 kbps. Blind studies are objective fact. What Neil Young thinks and is financially invested in isn't. Neil Young has tinnitus.

I've worked in major recording studios. And yes, most pro audio people believe that sennheiser hd800s are pretty accurate.

But regardless, your ultimate premise is just an extraordinarily flawed one. RAW is simply not a format that can be viewed in the first place. Even TIFF's actual display isn't higher resolution than JPEG, TIFF just keeps the extra non-displayable info "in the background."

Let me ask you this. When you look at your pictures, when they're displayed, what are you looking at? You keep speaking like you're looking at a RAW image displayed on a monitor or printed out.

RAW's strength isn't the extra "fidelity" it's that it allows complete control over white balance (since white balance is set after the image capture state). It also allows you to rescue detail that is outside what can be displayed. But in order to display it, you have to edit the image to bring that lost shadow detail back into the displayable range. JPEG doesn't discard shadow detail, it cuts out shadow detail that ****cant be displayed anyway****

edit: nevermind, you seem to not trust blind, scientific studies, but you do trust the hearing of Neil Young, who (and God I love his music) stood in front of a Fender Twin turned to 10 for a decade on a nightly basis. I just can't argue if those are the standards for what is and isn't valid support for an argument.

 

[soufiej]

QUOTE="fjrabon, post: 3450978, member: 107876"

"Yes JPEG is lossy. "

What exactly does the term "lossy" mean to you if not lost data?

"Studio engineers don't master with Wilsons they master with $400 Yamaha speakers."

I'm sorry to say, far too many studios do master using crap for speakers. Not all though, those studios which favor "high fidelity" to the live source use high fidelity monitors. They must if they are to know what they are putting on the final product. Please, do read the history of Wilson Audio and Dave's use of his original Watt monitors for his "audiophile" quality recordings; Wilson Audio A Brief History of Wilson Audio

Does doing it wrong make it right? Many studio engineers use $400 Yamaha speakers first, because they are a "near field" monitor which suits the space requirements of many studios. Second, most consumers do not own Wilsons, Quads, Theils, etc. They own junk speakers. One Rolling Stones album was mastered using 6X9 car speakers outside of an enclosure because it was, to Mick and the gang, the result they wanted. The lossy - lousy actually - sound quality was thought to be what their average listener would enjoy on their cheap boom boxes and rack system of the day. No pretense was made for "accuracy", simply to commercial appeal. However, before you go making such sweeping statements and wanting them to prove some ineffable point, you might want to look at more than you can see in front of just your very nose and from your very limited experience. B&W and Quad have long been THE speaker of choice for the British recording/broadcasting industry. KEF existed as a manufacturer of raw drivers and completed loudspeakers for what is one of the best known and longest lived audio products of the 20th century, the LS3/5a designed for mobile recording/monitoring purposes by the BBC. It was and remains a true studio monitor loudspeaker. Check the pricing on current LS3/5a clones. Sorry, your words are only true when we consider the studios using junk speakers tend to turn out junk recordings.


"JPEG is lossy because RAW records more information than can be displayed visually. "

I'm am not at all sure how you arrived at that bit of logic. Jpeg is "lossy" because cameras in smart phones and compact point and shoots required high storage capacity and low data packages in order to put lots of photos in the memory and to display them quickly on any device. FACT!

"Get back to me when you find a blind study where a sufficient sample size could differentiate between 320 kbps. Blind studies are objective fact. That Neil Young thinks and is financially invested in isn't. Neil Young has tinnitus."

I see you're taking the typical objectivist approach to insulting those who disagree with you. Why don't you simply cease believing what you believe and get in line with what is reality? Doubling down on your misinformation is again the mark of someone who wants to believe they are right when all of the facts say they are not. Tossing out insults makes me not very interested in your "opinion".

"I've worked in major recording studios. And yes, most pro audio people believe that sennheiser hd800s are pretty accurate."

Again with the argument from authority? That is a logical fallacy, you know? Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I never said they weren't great headphones. They are very accurate - for headphones. But headphones do not produce the holographic, life sized, three dimensional, wall to wall imaging and soundstaging of even a moderately decent $200 pair of speakers driven by a $349 integrated amplifier. Arguing with strawmen and logical fallacies isn't going to win you any points.

"But regardless, your ultimate premise is just an extraordinarily flawed one. RAW is simply not a format that can be viewed in the first place. Even TIFF's actually display isn't higher resolution than JPEG, TIFF just keeps the extra non-displayable info 'in the background'."

Again, you are arguing a point I never made. Jpeg compression discards data. Mpeg compression discards data. Anyone looking at the stair step pattern of a lossy format's sampling rates can easily see the gaps which exist in between sampling points when they view low bit rate files. OK, they can't actually "see" the file, only the representation of what the file "looks like" to the reconstruction systems. The point remains, data is lost in lossy formats. Why do you think they are called "lossy"? You are talking in circles.

"Let me ask you this. When you look at your pictures, when they're displayed, what are you looking at? You keep speaking like you're looking at a RAW image displayed on a monitor or printed out."

Let me ask you this, what am I seeing when I look at the play side of a CD? The data is there even if I cannot hear it by putting my ear up to the CD. The issue is still the same and it has nothing to do with your statement. Lossy formats loose data points. FACT!

"RAW's strength isn't the extra 'fidelity' it's that it allows complete control over white balance (since white balance is set after the image capture state). It also allows you to rescue detail that is outside what can be displayed. But in order to display it, you have to edit the image to bring that lost shadow detail back into the displayable range. "

I think you just proved my point. There is no "lost" data in a RAW file. It is there just as the data on the play side of the CD is there. Nothing exists in a digital format until it is reproduced in analog format. However, if you can retrieve the data, where did it come from if not that it existed to be retrieved. You simply cannot retrieve data which has been tossed out. You can downsample a WAV file to a Mpeg file for storage on a portable player. You cannot however, take a Mpeg file and make it magically be a WAV file. The same holds true for RAW and Jpeg image data.

"JPEG doesn't discard shadow detail, it cuts out shadow detail that ****cant be displayed anyway****"

Yes, Jpeg does discard data points. Why do you suppose it is labeled as a "lower bit rate" than a WAV file? If it didn't discard data by way of compression, how do you suppose the file size is reduced? Jpeg is not a compression/expansion format. It is compression only. Compression of data by way of reducing data package size to allow for greater numbers of files, not higher quality files. You are playing a semantic game with that last statement.

 

[fjrabon]

QUOTE="fjrabon, post: 3450978, member: 107876"

"Yes JPEG is lossy. "

What exactly does the term "lossy" mean to you if not lost data?

"Studio engineers don't master with Wilsons they master with $400 Yamaha speakers."

I'm sorry to say, far too many studios do master using crap for speakers. Not all though, those studios which favor "high fidelity" to the live source use high fidelity monitors. They must if they are to know what they are putting on the final product. Please, do read the history of Wilson Audio and Dave's use of his original Watt monitors for his "audiophile" quality recordings; Wilson Audio A Brief History of Wilson Audio

Does doing it wrong make it right? Many studio engineers use $400 Yamaha speakers first, because they are a "near field" monitor which suits the space requirements of many studios. Second, most consumers do not own Wilsons, Quads, Theils, etc. They own junk speakers. One Rolling Stones album was mastered using 6X9 car speakers outside of an enclosure because it was, to Mick and the gang, the result they wanted. The lossy - lousy actually - sound quality was thought to be what their average listener would enjoy on their cheap boom boxes and rack system of the day. No pretense was made for "accuracy", simply to commercial appeal. However, before you go making such sweeping statements and wanting them to prove some ineffable point, you might want to look at more than you can see in front of just your very nose and from your very limited experience. B&W and Quad have long been THE speaker of choice for the British recording/broadcasting industry. KEF existed as a manufacturer of raw drivers and completed loudspeakers for what is one of the best known and longest lived audio products of the 20th century, the LS3/5a designed for mobile recording/monitoring purposes by the BBC. It was and remains a true studio monitor loudspeaker. Check the pricing on current LS3/5a clones. Sorry, your words are only true when we consider the studios using junk speakers tend to turn out junk recordings.


"JPEG is lossy because RAW records more information than can be displayed visually. "

I'm am not at all sure how you arrived at that bit of logic. Jpeg is "lossy" because cameras in smart phones and compact point and shoots required high storage capacity and low data packages in order to put lots of photos in the memory and to display them quickly on any device. FACT!

"Get back to me when you find a blind study where a sufficient sample size could differentiate between 320 kbps. Blind studies are objective fact. That Neil Young thinks and is financially invested in isn't. Neil Young has tinnitus."

I see you're taking the typical objectivist approach to insulting those who disagree with you. Why don't you simply cease believing what you believe and get in line with what is reality? Doubling down on your misinformation is again the mark of someone who wants to believe they are right when all of the facts say they are not. Tossing out insults makes me not very interested in your "opinion".

"I've worked in major recording studios. And yes, most pro audio people believe that sennheiser hd800s are pretty accurate."

Again with the argument from authority? That is a logical fallacy, you know? Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I never said they weren't great headphones. They are very accurate - for headphones. But headphones do not produce the holographic, life sized, three dimensional, wall to wall imaging and soundstaging of even a moderately decent $200 pair of speakers driven by a $349 integrated amplifier. Arguing with strawmen and logical fallacies isn't going to win you any points.

"But regardless, your ultimate premise is just an extraordinarily flawed one. RAW is simply not a format that can be viewed in the first place. Even TIFF's actually display isn't higher resolution than JPEG, TIFF just keeps the extra non-displayable info 'in the background'."

Again, you are arguing a point I never made. Jpeg compression discards data. Mpeg compression discards data. Anyone looking at the stair step pattern of a lossy format's sampling rates can easily see the gaps which exist in between sampling points when they view low bit rate files. OK, they can't actually "see" the file, only the representation of what the file "looks like" to the reconstruction systems. The point remains, data is lost in lossy formats. Why do you think they are called "lossy"? You are talking in circles.

"Let me ask you this. When you look at your pictures, when they're displayed, what are you looking at? You keep speaking like you're looking at a RAW image displayed on a monitor or printed out."

Let me ask you this, what am I seeing when I look at the play side of a CD? The data is there even if I cannot hear it by putting my ear up to the CD. The issue is still the same and it has nothing to do with your statement. Lossy formats loose data points. FACT!

"RAW's strength isn't the extra 'fidelity' it's that it allows complete control over white balance (since white balance is set after the image capture state). It also allows you to rescue detail that is outside what can be displayed. But in order to display it, you have to edit the image to bring that lost shadow detail back into the displayable range. "

I think you just proved my point. There is no "lost" data in a RAW file. It is there just as the data on the play side of the CD is there. Nothing exists in a digital format until it is reproduced in analog format. However, if you can retrieve the data, where did it come from if not that it existed to be retrieved. You simply cannot retrieve data which has been tossed out. You can downsample a WAV file to a Mpeg file for storage on a portable player. You cannot however, take a Mpeg file and make it magically be a WAV file. The same holds true for RAW and Jpeg image data.

"JPEG doesn't discard shadow detail, it cuts out shadow detail that ****cant be displayed anyway****"

Yes, Jpeg does discard data points. Why do you suppose it is labeled as a "lower bit rate" than a WAV file? If it didn't discard data by way of compression, how do you suppose the file size is reduced? Jpeg is not a compression/expansion format. It is compression only. Compression of data by way of reducing data package size to allow for greater numbers of files, not higher quality files. You are playing a semantic game with that last statement.

I don't understand how you still haven't managed to understand that RAW records MORE DATA THAN CAN BE DISPLAYED visually and thus ANYTHING THAT SHOWS HUMAN BEINGS A PICTURE THEY CAN VIEW IS "lossy." Human beings can only view a certain portion of the visible spectrum at one time. They can't even view the entire visible spectrum simultaneously, our eyes have to adjust. JPEG fine exceeds the ability of a display, and our eyes.

Again, what is that you think you are looking at when you view a picture? If it is a print, what do you think it was printed from?

Please just answer this one question. What do you think you're looking at when you "view a RAW image"?

Edit: and yes, if we're talking about issues of fact, I trust blind studies over what people think they can hear or see. If you want to talk about logical fallacies and cognitive biases, you can't get rid of confirmation bias and the placebo effect without doing a blind study. Fact.

 

[soufiej]

QUOTE="fjrabon, post: 3450978, member: 107876"

"Yes JPEG is lossy. "

What exactly does the term "lossy" mean to you if not lost data?

"Studio engineers don't master with Wilsons they master with $400 Yamaha speakers."

I'm sorry to say, far too many studios do master using crap for speakers. Not all though, those studios which favor "high fidelity" to the live source use high fidelity monitors. They must if they are to know what they are putting on the final product. Please, do read the history of Wilson Audio and Dave's use of his original Watt monitors for his "audiophile" quality recordings; Wilson Audio A Brief History of Wilson Audio

Does doing it wrong make it right? Many studio engineers use $400 Yamaha speakers first, because they are a "near field" monitor which suits the space requirements of many studios. Second, most consumers do not own Wilsons, Quads, Theils, etc. They own junk speakers. One Rolling Stones album was mastered using 6X9 car speakers outside of an enclosure because it was, to Mick and the gang, the result they wanted. The lossy - lousy actually - sound quality was thought to be what their average listener would enjoy on their cheap boom boxes and rack system of the day. No pretense was made for "accuracy", simply to commercial appeal. However, before you go making such sweeping statements and wanting them to prove some ineffable point, you might want to look at more than you can see in front of just your very nose and from your very limited experience. B&W and Quad have long been THE speaker of choice for the British recording/broadcasting industry. KEF existed as a manufacturer of raw drivers and completed loudspeakers for what is one of the best known and longest lived audio products of the 20th century, the LS3/5a designed for mobile recording/monitoring purposes by the BBC. It was and remains a true studio monitor loudspeaker. Check the pricing on current LS3/5a clones. Sorry, your words are only true when we consider the studios using junk speakers tend to turn out junk recordings.


"JPEG is lossy because RAW records more information than can be displayed visually. "

I'm am not at all sure how you arrived at that bit of logic. Jpeg is "lossy" because cameras in smart phones and compact point and shoots required high storage capacity and low data packages in order to put lots of photos in the memory and to display them quickly on any device. FACT!

"Get back to me when you find a blind study where a sufficient sample size could differentiate between 320 kbps. Blind studies are objective fact. That Neil Young thinks and is financially invested in isn't. Neil Young has tinnitus."

I see you're taking the typical objectivist approach to insulting those who disagree with you. Why don't you simply cease believing what you believe and get in line with what is reality? Doubling down on your misinformation is again the mark of someone who wants to believe they are right when all of the facts say they are not. Tossing out insults makes me not very interested in your "opinion".

"I've worked in major recording studios. And yes, most pro audio people believe that sennheiser hd800s are pretty accurate."

Again with the argument from authority? That is a logical fallacy, you know? Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I never said they weren't great headphones. They are very accurate - for headphones. But headphones do not produce the holographic, life sized, three dimensional, wall to wall imaging and soundstaging of even a moderately decent $200 pair of speakers driven by a $349 integrated amplifier. Arguing with strawmen and logical fallacies isn't going to win you any points.

"But regardless, your ultimate premise is just an extraordinarily flawed one. RAW is simply not a format that can be viewed in the first place. Even TIFF's actually display isn't higher resolution than JPEG, TIFF just keeps the extra non-displayable info 'in the background'."

Again, you are arguing a point I never made. Jpeg compression discards data. Mpeg compression discards data. Anyone looking at the stair step pattern of a lossy format's sampling rates can easily see the gaps which exist in between sampling points when they view low bit rate files. OK, they can't actually "see" the file, only the representation of what the file "looks like" to the reconstruction systems. The point remains, data is lost in lossy formats. Why do you think they are called "lossy"? You are talking in circles.

"Let me ask you this. When you look at your pictures, when they're displayed, what are you looking at? You keep speaking like you're looking at a RAW image displayed on a monitor or printed out."

Let me ask you this, what am I seeing when I look at the play side of a CD? The data is there even if I cannot hear it by putting my ear up to the CD. The issue is still the same and it has nothing to do with your statement. Lossy formats loose data points. FACT!

"RAW's strength isn't the extra 'fidelity' it's that it allows complete control over white balance (since white balance is set after the image capture state). It also allows you to rescue detail that is outside what can be displayed. But in order to display it, you have to edit the image to bring that lost shadow detail back into the displayable range. "

I think you just proved my point. There is no "lost" data in a RAW file. It is there just as the data on the play side of the CD is there. Nothing exists in a digital format until it is reproduced in analog format. However, if you can retrieve the data, where did it come from if not that it existed to be retrieved. You simply cannot retrieve data which has been tossed out. You can downsample a WAV file to a Mpeg file for storage on a portable player. You cannot however, take a Mpeg file and make it magically be a WAV file. The same holds true for RAW and Jpeg image data.

"JPEG doesn't discard shadow detail, it cuts out shadow detail that ****cant be displayed anyway****"

Yes, Jpeg does discard data points. Why do you suppose it is labeled as a "lower bit rate" than a WAV file? If it didn't discard data by way of compression, how do you suppose the file size is reduced? Jpeg is not a compression/expansion format. It is compression only. Compression of data by way of reducing data package size to allow for greater numbers of files, not higher quality files. You are playing a semantic game with that last statement.

I don't understand how you still haven't managed to understand that RAW records MORE DATA THAN CAN BE DISPLAYED visually and thus ANYTHING THAT SHOWS HUMAN BEINGS A PICTURE THEY CAN VIEW IS "lossy." Human beings can only view a certain portion of the visible spectrum at one time. They can't even view the entire visible spectrum simultaneously, our eyes have to adjust. JPEG fine exceeds the ability of a display, and our eyes.

Again, what is that you think you are looking at when you view a picture? If it is a print, what do you think it was printed from?

Please just answer this one question. What do you think you're looking at when you "view a RAW image"?

Edit: and yes, if we're talking about issues of fact, I trust blind studies over what people think they can hear or see. If you want to talk about logical fallacies and cognitive biases, you can't get rid of confirmation bias and the placebo effect without doing a blind study. Fact.

Look, you aren't even comprehending my point.

Lossy file formats loose data points.

OK?

All the rest is claptrap.

And placebo effect is no different than no-cebo effect. Confirmation bias simply says, if you want it to be, it will be - for you. Fact is what you perceive and what I perceive can be two completely unique perceptions based upon our own "priorities". That doesn't make you the arbiter of what is actually and factually correct. It happens constantly. Show three people a photo and you'll get back three different perceptions of the photo. Have three people listen to a piece of music and you'll get three different ideas of what they heard. Why do you suppose there are so many different models of guitars. If everyone's perception of "guitar" were the same, wouldn't one model suffice?

You are now grabbing at straws.

 

[pixmedic]

ok so...
everything after raw is lossy.
i get that.
so what do you do with your raw files?
show me a picture that is not in a lossy format.
if everything after raw is lossy, what difference does it make which lossy format people choose?
what lossy format do you choose to display your digital pictures in?

 

[fjrabon]

QUOTE="fjrabon, post: 3450978, member: 107876"

"Yes JPEG is lossy. "

What exactly does the term "lossy" mean to you if not lost data?

"Studio engineers don't master with Wilsons they master with $400 Yamaha speakers."

I'm sorry to say, far too many studios do master using crap for speakers. Not all though, those studios which favor "high fidelity" to the live source use high fidelity monitors. They must if they are to know what they are putting on the final product. Please, do read the history of Wilson Audio and Dave's use of his original Watt monitors for his "audiophile" quality recordings; Wilson Audio A Brief History of Wilson Audio

Does doing it wrong make it right? Many studio engineers use $400 Yamaha speakers first, because they are a "near field" monitor which suits the space requirements of many studios. Second, most consumers do not own Wilsons, Quads, Theils, etc. They own junk speakers. One Rolling Stones album was mastered using 6X9 car speakers outside of an enclosure because it was, to Mick and the gang, the result they wanted. The lossy - lousy actually - sound quality was thought to be what their average listener would enjoy on their cheap boom boxes and rack system of the day. No pretense was made for "accuracy", simply to commercial appeal. However, before you go making such sweeping statements and wanting them to prove some ineffable point, you might want to look at more than you can see in front of just your very nose and from your very limited experience. B&W and Quad have long been THE speaker of choice for the British recording/broadcasting industry. KEF existed as a manufacturer of raw drivers and completed loudspeakers for what is one of the best known and longest lived audio products of the 20th century, the LS3/5a designed for mobile recording/monitoring purposes by the BBC. It was and remains a true studio monitor loudspeaker. Check the pricing on current LS3/5a clones. Sorry, your words are only true when we consider the studios using junk speakers tend to turn out junk recordings.


"JPEG is lossy because RAW records more information than can be displayed visually. "

I'm am not at all sure how you arrived at that bit of logic. Jpeg is "lossy" because cameras in smart phones and compact point and shoots required high storage capacity and low data packages in order to put lots of photos in the memory and to display them quickly on any device. FACT!

"Get back to me when you find a blind study where a sufficient sample size could differentiate between 320 kbps. Blind studies are objective fact. That Neil Young thinks and is financially invested in isn't. Neil Young has tinnitus."

I see you're taking the typical objectivist approach to insulting those who disagree with you. Why don't you simply cease believing what you believe and get in line with what is reality? Doubling down on your misinformation is again the mark of someone who wants to believe they are right when all of the facts say they are not. Tossing out insults makes me not very interested in your "opinion".

"I've worked in major recording studios. And yes, most pro audio people believe that sennheiser hd800s are pretty accurate."

Again with the argument from authority? That is a logical fallacy, you know? Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I never said they weren't great headphones. They are very accurate - for headphones. But headphones do not produce the holographic, life sized, three dimensional, wall to wall imaging and soundstaging of even a moderately decent $200 pair of speakers driven by a $349 integrated amplifier. Arguing with strawmen and logical fallacies isn't going to win you any points.

"But regardless, your ultimate premise is just an extraordinarily flawed one. RAW is simply not a format that can be viewed in the first place. Even TIFF's actually display isn't higher resolution than JPEG, TIFF just keeps the extra non-displayable info 'in the background'."

Again, you are arguing a point I never made. Jpeg compression discards data. Mpeg compression discards data. Anyone looking at the stair step pattern of a lossy format's sampling rates can easily see the gaps which exist in between sampling points when they view low bit rate files. OK, they can't actually "see" the file, only the representation of what the file "looks like" to the reconstruction systems. The point remains, data is lost in lossy formats. Why do you think they are called "lossy"? You are talking in circles.

"Let me ask you this. When you look at your pictures, when they're displayed, what are you looking at? You keep speaking like you're looking at a RAW image displayed on a monitor or printed out."

Let me ask you this, what am I seeing when I look at the play side of a CD? The data is there even if I cannot hear it by putting my ear up to the CD. The issue is still the same and it has nothing to do with your statement. Lossy formats loose data points. FACT!

"RAW's strength isn't the extra 'fidelity' it's that it allows complete control over white balance (since white balance is set after the image capture state). It also allows you to rescue detail that is outside what can be displayed. But in order to display it, you have to edit the image to bring that lost shadow detail back into the displayable range. "

I think you just proved my point. There is no "lost" data in a RAW file. It is there just as the data on the play side of the CD is there. Nothing exists in a digital format until it is reproduced in analog format. However, if you can retrieve the data, where did it come from if not that it existed to be retrieved. You simply cannot retrieve data which has been tossed out. You can downsample a WAV file to a Mpeg file for storage on a portable player. You cannot however, take a Mpeg file and make it magically be a WAV file. The same holds true for RAW and Jpeg image data.

"JPEG doesn't discard shadow detail, it cuts out shadow detail that ****cant be displayed anyway****"

Yes, Jpeg does discard data points. Why do you suppose it is labeled as a "lower bit rate" than a WAV file? If it didn't discard data by way of compression, how do you suppose the file size is reduced? Jpeg is not a compression/expansion format. It is compression only. Compression of data by way of reducing data package size to allow for greater numbers of files, not higher quality files. You are playing a semantic game with that last statement.

I don't understand how you still haven't managed to understand that RAW records MORE DATA THAN CAN BE DISPLAYED visually and thus ANYTHING THAT SHOWS HUMAN BEINGS A PICTURE THEY CAN VIEW IS "lossy." Human beings can only view a certain portion of the visible spectrum at one time. They can't even view the entire visible spectrum simultaneously, our eyes have to adjust. JPEG fine exceeds the ability of a display, and our eyes.

Again, what is that you think you are looking at when you view a picture? If it is a print, what do you think it was printed from?

Please just answer this one question. What do you think you're looking at when you "view a RAW image"?

Edit: and yes, if we're talking about issues of fact, I trust blind studies over what people think they can hear or see. If you want to talk about logical fallacies and cognitive biases, you can't get rid of confirmation bias and the placebo effect without doing a blind study. Fact.

Look, you aren't even comprehending my point.

Lossy file formats loose data points.

OK?

All the rest is claptrap.

And placebo effect is no different than no-cebo effect. Confirmation bias simply says, if you want it to be, it will be - for you. Fact is what you perceive and what I perceive can be two completely unique perceptions based upon our own "priorities". That doesn't make you the arbiter of what is actually and factually correct. It happens constantly. Show three people a photo and you'll get back three different perceptions of the photo. Have three people listen to a piece of music and you'll get three different ideas of what they heard. Why do you suppose there are so many different models of guitars. If everyone's perception of "guitar" were the same, wouldn't one model suffice?

You are now grabbing at straws.

If your definition of lossy is "doesn't make use of maximum data points" then all dslrs are lossy in comparison to large format.

For example, you can make a lossy format, where the only data it loses is UV spectrum. In that sense it's lossy. It loses those data points. They're not data points that a monitor can display (without converting them to the visible spectrum) but it still loses data points. JPEG also typically cuts shadow and brightness values that are outside what can be displyaed as different by monitors, printers, or especially the human eye. But we can mostly ignore the human eye part since you want to argue that. JPEG fine mostly cuts out things that anything you would use to display can't reproduce anyway. The primary thing JPEG does is cuts out data points that CANT BE DISPLAYED. SInce you like musical analogies, this is the equivalent of creating a "lossy" audio format that cuts out frequencies above and below what speakers can reproduce or the human ear can hear. I've heard audiophiles try to argue that cutting 40kHz cuts the "sparkle" of a recording, no matter what science says. This is, of course, bunk.

Again, what is it that you think you're looking at when you look at an image made from a RAW file? I've asked this question like 5 times. It's the whole argument for why if you're viewing and not archiving JPEG is fine, and that RAW only matters for archival and editing purposes, not for "viewing fidelity."