Digital camera question

  billy 21:54 21 Aug 2003

I know this is not a PC question, but you are really clever and maybe this interests you.
I just bought a Samsung Digimx V4 digital camera with a 4Mbps CCD. I took my first few photos using superfine setting and printed on my Canon S520 printer was very pleased with the quality. Then I started to play.
The camera has 4 settings in decreaasing file size i.e. more compression: TIFF, superfine, fine and normal. I took a photo under each setting of the same subject and printed to compare. TIFF looks best then superine but normal seems to have bettter resolution than fine, but fine seems to pick slight contrast i.e. shows different shades whereas normal shows one shade of an area. I assumed more compression would simply affect resolution. Does anyone know what you lose with more compression (JPEG)?

  DieSse 22:07 21 Aug 2003

Compression loses information - this may be lesser fine details, less sublety of colours, less overall colours etc.

  DieSse 22:10 21 Aug 2003

A good way to appreciate the effects of compressing with jpeg, is to take a picture on the PC, and apply more and more compression to it - you'll see what starts to go, and when and how noticeable it becomes.

JPEG can produce really tiny file sizes if you apply enough compression - but you wouldn't even recognise the picture well at very high levels.

  billy 22:59 21 Aug 2003

Diesse - thanks for your comments. On my PC how do I compress to JPEG? Will I have an application (got Win ME) that does this?

  siouxah1 23:02 21 Aug 2003

To my way of thinking, and there as many differing views as there are people.

I use as little compression as possible, when taking photo, commensuarate with the speed of saving to flash card. I then save in this max format/size to disc and CDR/DVD.

This allows me to change and crop photos as required and still print at a fair size. (My camera is 3mpixals). The cost per photo on CDR is quite small.

I use fine as opposed to Raw - Superfine or tif, with write to card time in mind unless I have a static subject and lots of time.

It is a balance between time, resolution required and available time on the job -- if you see what I mean.

Do some test shots and see what suits you best for the job you are doing.

Don't know if Canon will use RAW, but I'm told if one uses RAW and download to PC through the supplied viewer you will obtain the best colour gamut for your camera.

I started to look into 'colour space' but it left me rather bemused. I got the idea but could not work out how to achieve it at reasonable expense.

Regards Brian j

Perhaps hssutton will see your post and be able to be more specific.

  siouxah1 23:03 21 Aug 2003

Seem to have the wrong keyboard attached tonight-- spelling!!!

  siouxah1 23:08 21 Aug 2003

As an addition,

Can't remember for sure, but I think it was Pesala that did a test of graphics files and compressions and published the results. Have a search and see if you can find it.

  Stuartli 01:19 22 Aug 2003

You are being unfair to yourself in stating that it is not a PC question - in actual fact it is...:-)

With a 4MP camera even using the lowest resolution setting is probably better than most 1.3 or 2MP cameras on the market at their maximum resolution.

To compress a pic file just rename it (you can use the same file name if you wish) and add .jpeg; for example Jodie.jpeg.

The quality will be more than suitable for use on a website or for e-mailing to friends etc.

Your normal 4MP shots will have resolution that is far superior to what you are likely to use on your monitor, so compressing the files is not likely to be noticed on the screen unless you compress them very substantially.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Moto G6 Play Review: First Look

iPad 9.7in (2018) review

Comment utiliser Live Photos ?