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: Peter on 30 Jul 2010 17:08 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010073009383611272-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-07-30 09:02:22 -0700, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> said: > > > As for the value of anything I might contribute regarding photography, or > other personal opinions I have expressed, I try to limit that to equipment > I own, or knowledge and experience I have gained over the years. > If everybody did that we would have far fewer posts, but the reliability of the advice and the quality of postings would greatly increase. It might even encourage others with real knowledge to contribute. I suspect that too many are intimidated by the BS artists/ No. "BSers. -- Peter
From: David J Taylor on 30 Jul 2010 17:19 "bobwilliams" <mytbob(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:LuydnVUm-urmrc7RnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... [] > That is what I have noticed too. I was just wondering how such good > quality was retained after losing so much image information either by > compression or image size reduction. > Bob By matching the compression to both the source and the eye/brain characteristics - i.e. limiting the amount of detail where the eye can't see it. JPEG is generally very well designed for its intended use. Cheers, David
From: Peter on 30 Jul 2010 17:18 "Dave Cohen" <user(a)example.net> wrote in message news:i2uvmg$dn3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > The op beat me to the same question. My concern was not with file size but > with noise. Canon do use a lower resolution when higher iso is selected by > them for low light scene settings. I'll just run a bunch of test shots > including using the noise reduction layer in PhotoPlus (could never afford > PS). Try Corel PaintShop Photo Pro. Corel sells it for $59.9. It is excellent value and does not have a large learning curve. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a Corel partner, but only for WordPerfect. -- Peter
From: Peter on 30 Jul 2010 17:26 "bobwilliams" <mytbob(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:LuydnVUm-urmrc7RnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > ray wrote: >> I would imagine you are talking about JPEG compression here. Suggest you >> experiment a little with your favourite photo manipulation software. >> You'll find that most images can be very highly compressed without any >> noticeable degredation. The same is not true for dropping resolution. > That is what I have noticed too. I was just wondering how such good > quality was retained after losing so much image information either by > compression or image size reduction. It depends on the image and viewing method. As a general rule: (Yes there may be some exceptions, depending on the particular image.) If you are talking about digital viewing, you may not even notice the degradation. If set up for magazine printing, maybe there would be some noticeable degradation. For photo quality ink jet printing depends on the size. the larger the print, the more you will notice the degradation. IOW there is no one definitive answer that fits all cases. -- Peter
From: John McWilliams on 30 Jul 2010 21:14
Ryan McGinnis wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > << Snipped bits out >> > > Isn't trolling Usenet a little on the "outdated" side of things? After several months, it moves from Trolling, to trolling, to pestilence. Ryan- No need to sign messages; forgers can fake PGP stuff easily, and no one checks the origin on usenet anyway. Also, a sig delimiter is dash, dash, space, return; no more, no less. -- Like that. John McWilliams |