Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression

Hap Shaughnessy wrote:
Hello: Ron Baird, Eastman Kodak Company.

Thanks for your support helping Kodak fans and the subscribers of
rec.photo.digital.

Is there any possiblity that there will be a firmware update lowering
the JPEG compression ratio for the DX7630's Fine quality setting?

No compression or very little would be wonderful.

TIA,

Hap

Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.

Hap Shaughnessy wrote:
Hello: Ron Baird, Eastman Kodak Company.

Thanks for your support helping Kodak fans and the subscribers of
rec.photo.digital.

Is there any possiblity that there will be a firmware update lowering
the JPEG compression ratio for the DX7630's Fine quality setting?

No compression or very little would be wonderful.

TIA,

Hap

Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.

Subject: Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression
From: Ron Hunter
Date: 8/8/2004 11:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hap Shaughnessy wrote:
Hello: Ron Baird, Eastman Kodak Company.

Thanks for your support helping Kodak fans and the subscribers of
rec.photo.digital.

Is there any possiblity that there will be a firmware update lowering
the JPEG compression ratio for the DX7630's Fine quality setting?

No compression or very little would be wonderful.

TIA,

Hap

Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.


I have a 6490. I like the compression just as it is..


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression
From: Ron Hunter
Date: 8/8/2004 11:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hap Shaughnessy wrote:
Hello: Ron Baird, Eastman Kodak Company.

Thanks for your support helping Kodak fans and the subscribers of
rec.photo.digital.

Is there any possiblity that there will be a firmware update lowering
the JPEG compression ratio for the DX7630's Fine quality setting?

No compression or very little would be wonderful.

TIA,

Hap

Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.


I have a 6490. I like the compression just as it is..


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ron Hunter wrote in news:10hctgagva5al77
@corp.supernews.com:

Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.



JPEG compression is seldom below 3x, so 6 Mbyte would be more reasonable.

If you want uncompressed (or lossless compressed) pictures RAW is a
better option. Then you will get the actual sensor data (with some minor
enhacements, e.g. long exposure noise removal) at an optimal size.


/Roland

Ron Hunter wrote in news:10hctgagva5al77
@corp.supernews.com:

Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.



JPEG compression is seldom below 3x, so 6 Mbyte would be more reasonable.

If you want uncompressed (or lossless compressed) pictures RAW is a
better option. Then you will get the actual sensor data (with some minor
enhacements, e.g. long exposure noise removal) at an optimal size.


/Roland

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote in news:10hctgagva5al77
@corp.supernews.com:


Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.




JPEG compression is seldom below 3x, so 6 Mbyte would be more reasonable.

If you want uncompressed (or lossless compressed) pictures RAW is a
better option. Then you will get the actual sensor data (with some minor
enhacements, e.g. long exposure noise removal) at an optimal size.


/Roland
RAW is hardly 'optimal' as it produces large files which still need
proprietary software to make the pictures usable by other software.
Certainly JPG isn't the best compression method if one wants to avoid
data loss, but it IS very good at rendering a good image quality with
excellent compression.

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote in news:10hctgagva5al77
@corp.supernews.com:


Hap,
No compression would make very large files. The files would be about
18 megabytes each.




JPEG compression is seldom below 3x, so 6 Mbyte would be more reasonable.

If you want uncompressed (or lossless compressed) pictures RAW is a
better option. Then you will get the actual sensor data (with some minor
enhacements, e.g. long exposure noise removal) at an optimal size.


/Roland
RAW is hardly 'optimal' as it produces large files which still need
proprietary software to make the pictures usable by other software.
Certainly JPG isn't the best compression method if one wants to avoid
data loss, but it IS very good at rendering a good image quality with
excellent compression.

Ron Hunter wrote in news:10hdn7kebb89b77
@corp.supernews.com:

RAW is hardly 'optimal' as it produces large files which still need
proprietary software to make the pictures usable by other software.
Certainly JPG isn't the best compression method if one wants to avoid
data loss, but it IS very good at rendering a good image quality with
excellent compression.



There are no smaller files that contains the original
information. In that sense it is optimal.

But your observations are correct.


/Roland

Ron Hunter wrote in news:10hdn7kebb89b77
@corp.supernews.com:

RAW is hardly 'optimal' as it produces large files which still need
proprietary software to make the pictures usable by other software.
Certainly JPG isn't the best compression method if one wants to avoid
data loss, but it IS very good at rendering a good image quality with
excellent compression.



There are no smaller files that contains the original
information. In that sense it is optimal.

But your observations are correct.


/Roland