A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Point & Shoot Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 15th 06, 09:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

Bible John wrote:
Yes I am aware that I can take 2-4 pictures in the time frame it takes to
save the image to the card. I doubt a new card will help, as I tested this
with the internal RAM, and its still slow. Internal RAM is always faster
than external RAM (I know this from experience with PDA's). Well with the
exception of CF, which with some cards seems to be nearly as fast as
internal RAM. But only high end cameras use CF. Low end cameras did at one
time use CF, but not anymore.

But what I do not understand is why my old Vivitar 3625 2.1MP camera saved
pictures faster than my newer Kodak, and why the Kodak still has this time
delay even when I take images using the 1.1MP mode. I can take more
pictures while the light flashes, but I just hate that delay.

The Vivitar may have this one advantage, but overall the Kodak is ages ahead
of the Vivtar especially with the lens system. The images come out so much
cleaner! You cant always base a cameras quality on the MP I have learned
from experience.

On the Vivitar if I took a picture using the low res 800x600 setting, the
images always seemed to come back fuzzy. I do not have this problem with the
Kodak.


John


The speed of writing the image to the card has never been a problem with
my Kodak DX6440. The only time I have ever actually had to wait on the
writing process was when I was on an Alaskan cruise and was snapping
pictures as fast as the camera would allow near Sawyer Glacier. Yes,
writing to the card is slower (usually) than other camera processes, but
doesn't often get in my way. In order to get a camera/card combination
that is really fast, you will need to spend big bucks.
  #12  
Old April 15th 06, 09:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

George E. Cawthon wrote:
Bible John wrote:
--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...


Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is usually
limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are the same
(not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite a bit
faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very expensive and
some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may be all you need
with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least 512 MB cards.



Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for
years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not. Most
people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are told by
the public that they do.

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do
not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.


John

Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement and
found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the same............"

I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera,
just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP camera
will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and I need
that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not sure how
many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera but it sure
wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before they get back to
their computer.

As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want.

I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have
considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I
would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska
only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips longer
than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some sense, but
given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card, and that totals
to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me.... What's the use?
  #13  
Old April 15th 06, 09:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

Helen wrote:
"Bible John" wrote in message
...
--

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not
need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.

Most peoples' consumeristic cravings, as you call them, are engendered by
research before buying and a desire to get something pretty decent. I'm
unfamiliar with the camera you have chosen - I use Canons with pixel counts
of 4 and almost 6 times yours. Strikes me that 3.1 pixels nowadays is a
pretty down-to-a-price rather than up-to-a-quality sort of camera, and I
doubt you can expect up-to-a-quality performance. Compound this with your
carefully searching out the cheapest card money can buy and, well, caveat
emptor.


Excuse me? Which Canon models have 18mp?
  #14  
Old April 15th 06, 11:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images


"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Helen wrote:
"Bible John" wrote in message
...
--

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not
need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.

Most peoples' consumeristic cravings, as you call them, are engendered by
research before buying and a desire to get something pretty decent. I'm
unfamiliar with the camera you have chosen - I use Canons with pixel
counts of 4 and almost 6 times yours. Strikes me that 3.1 pixels
nowadays is a pretty down-to-a-price rather than up-to-a-quality sort of
camera, and I doubt you can expect up-to-a-quality performance. Compound
this with your carefully searching out the cheapest card money can buy
and, well, caveat emptor.

Excuse me? Which Canon models have 18mp?


Excuse me? Where did I say x6? Read again, I think this time you might find
I said "almost 6 times".

The 16.5 megapixels of my 1DSIIs stated as "almost 6 times" 3.1 megapixels
is close enough for me, and 4 times 3.1 as 12.4 is as near as never mind to
the 12.7 of my 5Ds.

By the number of posts you've made on this matter it seems that you're quite
obsessed with finding the elusive Canon 18. But I think the word "almost"
is what you should really be looking at.

Helen.


  #15  
Old April 16th 06, 01:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

Ron Hunter wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:

Bible John wrote:

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...


Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is usually
limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are the same
(not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite a bit
faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very expensive and
some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may be all you need
with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least 512 MB cards.



Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for
years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not. Most
people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are told by
the public that they do.

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do
not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.


John

Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement and
found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the same............"

I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera,
just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP
camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and I
need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not
sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera
but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before they
get back to their computer.

As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want.


I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have
considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I
would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska
only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips longer
than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some sense, but
given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card, and that totals
to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me.... What's the use?


Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop.
Although cameras very in their compression
ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB card
means your camera is set for a smaller image size
or stores the pictures at a higher compression
ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB card I could
store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4
compression) and only 20 negs in TIFF format. I
don't use TIFF because I don't seem much
improvement, if any, and write times is very long
because the files are huge.

It make much little sense to store negatives at
less quality than the lowest compression ratio.

  #16  
Old April 16th 06, 09:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

Helen wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Helen wrote:
"Bible John" wrote in message
...
--

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not
need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.

Most peoples' consumeristic cravings, as you call them, are engendered by
research before buying and a desire to get something pretty decent. I'm
unfamiliar with the camera you have chosen - I use Canons with pixel
counts of 4 and almost 6 times yours. Strikes me that 3.1 pixels
nowadays is a pretty down-to-a-price rather than up-to-a-quality sort of
camera, and I doubt you can expect up-to-a-quality performance. Compound
this with your carefully searching out the cheapest card money can buy
and, well, caveat emptor.

Excuse me? Which Canon models have 18mp?


Excuse me? Where did I say x6? Read again, I think this time you might find
I said "almost 6 times".

The 16.5 megapixels of my 1DSIIs stated as "almost 6 times" 3.1 megapixels
is close enough for me, and 4 times 3.1 as 12.4 is as near as never mind to
the 12.7 of my 5Ds.

By the number of posts you've made on this matter it seems that you're quite
obsessed with finding the elusive Canon 18. But I think the word "almost"
is what you should really be looking at.

Helen.


I don't want to get into definitions of 'almost', but it would have to
be closer to 18 than 16.5 to match my definition of 'almost'. Again,
just wanted to make sure I didn't miss a new model.
  #17  
Old April 16th 06, 09:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

George E. Cawthon wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:

Bible John wrote:

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always
be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in
message ...


Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is
usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are
the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite
a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very
expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may
be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least
512 MB cards.



Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for
years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not.
Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are
told by the public that they do.

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do
not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.


John

Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement
and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the
same............"

I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera,
just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP
camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and
I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not
sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera
but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before
they get back to their computer.

As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want.


I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have
considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I
would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska
only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips
longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some
sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card,
and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me....
What's the use?


Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras very
in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB card means
your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the pictures at a
higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB card I could
store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression) and only 20 negs
in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't seem much improvement,
if any, and write times is very long because the files are huge.

It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the
lowest compression ratio.


Higher compression, in the case of my camera. This is seldom a problem,
but taking pictures of trees on a mountainside produces unacceptably
'muddy' images. Something I will look out for when I buy my next
digital camera, in like 5 years....
  #18  
Old April 16th 06, 11:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

Ron Hunter wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:

George E. Cawthon wrote:

Bible John wrote:

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always
be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for
the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in
message
...


Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is
usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are
the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be
quite a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very
expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may
be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least
512 MB cards.




Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for
years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not.
Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are
told by the public that they do.

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I
do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.


John

Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement
and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the
same............"

I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera,
just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP
camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and
I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage.
Not sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP
camera but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people
before they get back to their computer.

As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want.


I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have
considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I
would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to
Alaska only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made
trips longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make
some sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg
card, and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with
me.... What's the use?



Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras
very in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB
card means your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the
pictures at a higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB
card I could store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression) and
only 20 negs in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't seem
much improvement, if any, and write times is very long because the
files are huge.

It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the
lowest compression ratio.


Higher compression, in the case of my camera. This is seldom a problem,
but taking pictures of trees on a mountainside produces unacceptably
'muddy' images. Something I will look out for when I buy my next
digital camera, in like 5 years....


Huh? Higher compression equals smaller files,
poorer quality.
  #19  
Old April 17th 06, 10:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

George E. Cawthon wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:

George E. Cawthon wrote:

Bible John wrote:

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always
be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for
the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in
message
...


Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is
usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards
are the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be
quite a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not
very expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128
MB may be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want
at least 512 MB cards.




Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for
years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not.
Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are
told by the public that they do.

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I
do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.


John

Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement
and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the
same............"

I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition
camera, just that many people preferred a higher capacity card.
My 4MP camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB
card and I need that much when traveling because I have no other
storage. Not sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card
with a 3.1MP camera but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many
other people before they get back to their computer.

As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want.


I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have
considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I
would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to
Alaska only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made
trips longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make
some sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg
card, and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with
me.... What's the use?


Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras
very in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB
card means your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the
pictures at a higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB
card I could store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression)
and only 20 negs in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't
seem much improvement, if any, and write times is very long because
the files are huge.

It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the
lowest compression ratio.


Higher compression, in the case of my camera. This is seldom a
problem, but taking pictures of trees on a mountainside produces
unacceptably 'muddy' images. Something I will look out for when I buy
my next digital camera, in like 5 years....


Huh? Higher compression equals smaller files, poorer quality.


Yes, but when the camera firmware doesn't offer a choice, you are left
with whatever the programmers decided was 'optimal'. Unfortunately, the
nature of JPEG compression is that it is 'scene sensitive', with some
types of scenes requiring different settings for optimal results.. I am
stuck with only on compression level, which I will correct when I get my
next camera. It is a problem only one percent of the time, but there is
that one percent...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Issues with Kodak CD33 saving images Bible John Digital Photography 2 April 14th 06 09:54 PM
Issues with Kodak CD33 saving images Bible John Digital Point & Shoot Cameras 1 April 14th 06 09:54 PM
Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500? tomviolin Digital Photography 230 April 15th 05 12:03 PM
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.