On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:54:47 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown
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.