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: Savageduck on 1 Aug 2010 00:07 On 2010-07-31 20:50:36 -0700, Ryan McGinnis <digicana(a)gmail.com> said: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 7/31/2010 7:13 PM, Ofnuts wrote: > >>> Depends how you run it. I go with one primary drive and one secondary >>> drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the >>> new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and >>> place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap. >> >> But not very reliable. Ever tried to read back your oldest ones? > > By the time they are no longer readable (I figure 7 to 10 years from > burn date) it will be time to shift to a new format. Digital storage is > not like film; you don't store it in one form for the entire lifetime of > the image. CDs move to DVDs, DVDs probably move to Blu-Ray, perhaps one > day it all moves into the cloud (I also have all toned final JPG files > stored in the cloud) -- who know what the future holds. But if floppy > disks and old tape drives teach you anything, it's that you're going to > have to update storage medium with time. Blu-Ray 100GB triple layer about to hit. < http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/202185/bluray_disc_capacities_jump_to_100gb.html > -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Robert Coe on 1 Aug 2010 09:31 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:05:42 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> 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. 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. Obviously the solution that leaves you the most options is to always shoot in RAW mode, something few P&S camers support these days. I'm under the impression that on at least some P&Ses, using CHDK enables the RAW data to be captured on a camera that doesn't support it natively. Is that the case? If so, does it apply to all CHDK cameras or just some of them? Bob
From: Ofnuts on 1 Aug 2010 09:52 On 01/08/2010 05:50, Ryan McGinnis wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 7/31/2010 7:13 PM, Ofnuts wrote: > >>> Depends how you run it. I go with one primary drive and one secondary >>> drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the >>> new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and >>> place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap. >> >> But not very reliable. Ever tried to read back your oldest ones? > > By the time they are no longer readable (I figure 7 to 10 years from > burn date) it will be time to shift to a new format. Digital storage is > not like film; you don't store it in one form for the entire lifetime of > the image. CDs move to DVDs, DVDs probably move to Blu-Ray, perhaps one > day it all moves into the cloud (I also have all toned final JPG files > stored in the cloud) -- who know what the future holds. But if floppy > disks and old tape drives teach you anything, it's that you're going to > have to update storage medium with time. And format... I had some old Photo-CDs I converted to TIFF because finding PCD-Capable software is getting difficult. And this is also how I found that some of my CD had errors (fortunately, on files I had elsewhere). -- Bertrand
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 1 Aug 2010 14:25 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:02:47 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > >I'm truly sorry to read all that gibberish, Outing, because I thought I'd seen >some evidence lately that you've been taking your meds and/or that your >headshrinker was starting to get through to you. Alas, I guess I was wrong. I'd answer your question ... but you've proved yourself : to be a loathsome toad of a troll (wait, that insults toads which are quite : nice animals), one who doesn't deserve to get any real help from me. But what I did manage to do is use your sorry excuse of an existence to tell the truth about the USELESSNESS of RAW when the camera is designed and programmed correctly, to convert that data to JPG properly in the first place. All of those harsh realities that you so insecurely want to call "gibberish". Didn't see that coming, now did you. That's what really burns you. Now go try trolling someone else who hasn't as easily figured out your childish and blatantly obvious DSLR-TROLL's manipulation tactics.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 2 Aug 2010 19:40
Ryan McGinnis <digicana(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/31/2010 3:42 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> Ryan McGinnis <digicana(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> incredibly cheap and getting cheaper by the hour. If you are not >>> shooting RAW, a terabyte drive will hold more photos than you're likely >>> to take in your lifetime on a 10MP camera, and they run around $150. >> A proper backup concept will cost much more than $150. > Depends how you run it. Well, there's secure and there is cheap, choose one and the opposite of the other. > I go with one primary drive and one secondary > drive for temp backups of new stuff. Every month or so I archive the > new stuff to two sets of DVDs, delete it off of the secondary drive, and > place one set of DVDs in a bank vault. DVDs are pretty cheap. I've seen enough burned DVDs to only trust them when read back, compared with the original, checked for reading problems (minimum: reading speed graph), and backed with dvdisaster[1]. And then I don't trust them very far --- a yearly check might well be needed for long term storage. So you'd spend much time handling DVDs which has also costs, in time, if not in dollars. -Wolfgang [1] http://dvdisaster.net/en/ |