Image Size and Compression.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: More Brit anti-terror lunacy, or, why people with IQ's of 70 shouldn't carry badges
Next: Looking before Leaping....Fuji HS10.....???
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 30 Jul 2010 08:15 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >For my money the higher resolution image using higher compression will >almost always beat the lower resolution less compressed image. There can >be exceptions and unless you are absolutely certain you will never need >the extra pixels or you are running out of media space there is little >or no advantage in decreasing image size in the camera. > >Regards, >Martin Brown Showing how little you know. If using higher ISO's with more noise, it can be advantageous to use in-camera downsampling. As this will average-out the noise from the RAW sensor data.
From: bugbear on 30 Jul 2010 08:54 Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown > <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> For my money the higher resolution image using higher compression will >> almost always beat the lower resolution less compressed image. There can >> be exceptions and unless you are absolutely certain you will never need >> the extra pixels or you are running out of media space there is little >> or no advantage in decreasing image size in the camera. >> >> Regards, >> Martin Brown > > Showing how little you know. > > If using higher ISO's with more noise, it can be advantageous to use > in-camera downsampling. As this will average-out the noise from the RAW > sensor data. It would be more "advantageous" to retain the original data and use a superior noise reduction algorithm later. You can look up noise reduction algorithms on your own time if you think averaging is a good one. BugBear
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 30 Jul 2010 09:05 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:54:47 +0100, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> For my money the higher resolution image using higher compression will >>> almost always beat the lower resolution less compressed image. There can >>> be exceptions and unless you are absolutely certain you will never need >>> the extra pixels or you are running out of media space there is little >>> or no advantage in decreasing image size in the camera. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Martin Brown >> >> Showing how little you know. >> >> If using higher ISO's with more noise, it can be advantageous to use >> in-camera downsampling. As this will average-out the noise from the RAW >> sensor data. > >It would be more "advantageous" to retain the original data >and use a superior noise reduction algorithm later. > Of course it would. But that was not the question nor possible answer. I purposely set all my cameras to lowest contrast (retains fullest dynamic range in the JPG output), lowest noise-reduction, and lowest sharpening settings so that I may do that better on the computer. If available (as in CHDK cameras) I will use a live-view RGB histogram to determine if any one or more of the color channels are also out of whack and will also adjust those accordingly so that one will not be blown-out before another. However, it can be even better to use a RAW-Averaging feature as is available in all CHDK P&S cameras' in-camera processing to provide completely noise-free images at ISO800, 1600, and higher. You speak as if others don't know more than you ever will.
From: bugbear on 30 Jul 2010 09:16 Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:54:47 +0100, bugbear > <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > >> Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown >>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> For my money the higher resolution image using higher compression will >>>> almost always beat the lower resolution less compressed image. There can >>>> be exceptions and unless you are absolutely certain you will never need >>>> the extra pixels or you are running out of media space there is little >>>> or no advantage in decreasing image size in the camera. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin Brown >>> Showing how little you know. >>> >>> If using higher ISO's with more noise, it can be advantageous to use >>> in-camera downsampling. As this will average-out the noise from the RAW >>> sensor data. >> It would be more "advantageous" to retain the original data >> and use a superior noise reduction algorithm later. >> > > Of course it would. Well done. BugBear
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 30 Jul 2010 09:25
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:16:50 +0100, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:54:47 +0100, bugbear >> <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >> >>> Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown >>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For my money the higher resolution image using higher compression will >>>>> almost always beat the lower resolution less compressed image. There can >>>>> be exceptions and unless you are absolutely certain you will never need >>>>> the extra pixels or you are running out of media space there is little >>>>> or no advantage in decreasing image size in the camera. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Martin Brown >>>> Showing how little you know. >>>> >>>> If using higher ISO's with more noise, it can be advantageous to use >>>> in-camera downsampling. As this will average-out the noise from the RAW >>>> sensor data. >>> It would be more "advantageous" to retain the original data >>> and use a superior noise reduction algorithm later. >>> >> >> Of course it would. > >Well done. > > BugBear Does the rest of the answer that you snipped reveal the depths of your ignorance? Of course it does. Don't you just love those blinders of self-induced-ignorance that you wear in order to retain your bliss of ignorance. Ah ... the bliss of ignorance. You revel in it so well. |