Re: Fuji A340 resolution question

Peter in New Zealand wrote:


"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:qBvvj.11343$XI.8768@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter in New Zealand wrote:
[]
My question is - is there any point in shooting at the 4F setting as
opposed to the 4N, especially as it does produce a larger file size,
and I can't really see what advantage there might be in my test pics.
The handbook is absolutely no help at all, and I would love it if
someone who knows more about this that I do could help me. Thanks.

Peter. Two points of view:

A - Memory is so cheap, just use the best settings (biggest file size) for your camera. You never know when you might need that marginal extra quality.

B - If you can't see the difference, what does it matter?

You want to look for a Web site which shows you what using too much JPEG compression does to the images. Compression is the difference between Normal and Fine - Fine has less compression and hence bigger files. I've seen:

- blotches in clear blue skies - what should be a smooth image has contouring or rectangular borders faintly visible

- lack of detail - e,g, in fine grassy areas - the blades of grass merge into an "impressionist painting" appearance. I've also seen this on grey areas (e.g. grey tile roofs) where there isn't any colour to distract the eye from the blotches in the roof.

- spurious detail around sharp edges.

These effects can be quite subtle, but the trouble is that when you have seen them once, you keep noticing them! It does depend on the camera as well. From what I've seen, the compression algorithm used by Nikon is well matched to the images, and yet still produces a small size. On my 6MP DSLR I have a choice of Basic, Normal or Fine, and for me the 1.5MB sized files from the Normal setting are adequate - I can see very little gain with the 2.8MB Fine setting. My main use is on-screen viewing, and I don't print bigger than A4 (297 x 210mm).

Cheers,
David
Hi David. Thank you for taking time to answer my question. The fact that the Fine setting uses less compression than the Normal setting is exactly what I needed to know. As you point out, memory is not expensive, so I will continue using the Fine setting as I have been for the past three years. It's the usual thing - while I have used film cameras as a hobby for over 50 years this is my first digital camera, and, had I known what I have learnt from using it, back when I bought it, I probably would not have bought it - if that makes any sense. It only produces jpeg images, and, while they are OK for general use, I am aware of the potential quality loss when working with them.

I have even wondered if I should convert them to something like tiff format immediately after importing them onto the computer, as I have plenty of drive space available. Someone even suggested good old bit map format for storage as it is a completely lossless format I believe. Am I making any sense, or have I got this format thing wrong?

No point in converting jpeg to tiff when downloading to your H.D.
Once compression is done to a jpeg image, a certain amount of information is LOST and cannot be retrieved by any means.
However, at your F setting, the quality loss is insignificant.
But if you plan on doing several sessions of editing and saving your image, you should SAVE it after each session in some lossless format such as tiff, bmp, or psd (photoshop's native format). If you SAVE your edited image in jpeg, you will lose a little bit of information each time you SAVE it. After several saves, the image deterioration will be visible.
Bob Williams
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fuji A340 resolution question
    ... A - Memory is so cheap, just use the best settings for your camera. ... Compression is the difference between Normal and Fine - Fine has less compression and hence bigger files. ... On my 6MP DSLR I have a choice of Basic, Normal or Fine, and for me the 1.5MB sized files from the Normal setting are adequate - I can see very little gain with the 2.8MB Fine setting. ... I have even wondered if I should convert them to something like tiff format immediately after importing them onto the computer, as I have plenty of drive space available. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Newbie query on vanishing file size
    ... > If I have to use JPEG when taking the image I always convert to TIFF or PSD ... format first, do the editing and any intermediate saves in that format ... "finished" picture in a lossless format. ... some form of lossless compression to that file. ...
    (uk.rec.photo.misc)
  • Re: Digital Camera question
    ... >> I find the emphasis on lack of compression puzzling, ... JPEG will add a slight ripple either side ... to discourage modification -- it's a carrier format rather than a data ... grains or dye clouds in the emulsion layer on a piece of 35mm film, ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Shooting RAW vs RAW and JPG
    ... They are also mindful that ultra low compression in a JPEG produces a file very, very close the RAW data file and without the hassles RAW files cause. ... If Microsoft manage to pull off their lossles image compression format format; "WDP", JPEGs and MS's WDP format will dominate the scene in a year or two anyway. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Converting/resizing JPGs...
    ... Convert them to SVG format (http://delineate.sourceforge.net/ looks ... promising) and convert *that* to a lower resolution. ... that would be better for scalable maps than jpeg. ... Bothe Tif or Tiff and Png use lossless LZW compression but they will never ...
    (uk.comp.misc)