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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression
Hi Hap,
I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. I am, however, sharing your comments with the same team so they are aware of the interest. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "Hap Shaughnessy" wrote in message ... 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Hap,
I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. I am, however, sharing your comments with the same team so they are aware of the interest. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "Hap Shaughnessy" wrote in message ... 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ron Baird
writes Hi Hap, I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. You don't have to change the *algorithm* only the two tables of 64 numbers used to quantise the JPEG coefficients (and possibly just one number used to scale the master table). Kodak's compression on some cameras even at the "Finest" setting is too aggressive - detail gets lost. Regards, Martin Brown I am, however, sharing your comments with the same team so they are aware of the interest. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "Hap Shaughnessy" wrote in message .. . 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 -- Martin Brown |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ron Baird
writes Hi Hap, I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. You don't have to change the *algorithm* only the two tables of 64 numbers used to quantise the JPEG coefficients (and possibly just one number used to scale the master table). Kodak's compression on some cameras even at the "Finest" setting is too aggressive - detail gets lost. Regards, Martin Brown I am, however, sharing your comments with the same team so they are aware of the interest. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "Hap Shaughnessy" wrote in message .. . 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 -- Martin Brown |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ron Baird
writes Hi Hap, I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. You don't have to change the *algorithm* only the two tables of 64 numbers used to quantise the JPEG coefficients (and possibly just one number used to scale the master table). Kodak's compression on some cameras even at the "Finest" setting is too aggressive - detail gets lost. Regards, Martin Brown I am, however, sharing your comments with the same team so they are aware of the interest. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "Hap Shaughnessy" wrote in message .. . 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 -- Martin Brown |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Baird" wrote in message ...
Hi Hap, I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. I am, however, sharing your comments with the same team so they are aware of the interest. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company Hi, I have a DX6340 and IMHO, it has a slightly too high a compression rate even at the best setting, it blurs grass, trees etc. even though the camera itself is perfectly capable of capturing more detail. Otherwise it is an OK P&S, actually in most cases you do not notice the compression, but sometimes the compression shows a bit too much. Another gripe I have about the camera is the lack of separate power switch, I'd like to be able to leave the chosen setting on and just push the power button. It is not a big deal, but a separate switch would be more convenient. Cheers, Jukka |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Baird" wrote in message ...
Hi Hap, I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. I am, however, sharing your comments with the same team so they are aware of the interest. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company Hi, I have a DX6340 and IMHO, it has a slightly too high a compression rate even at the best setting, it blurs grass, trees etc. even though the camera itself is perfectly capable of capturing more detail. Otherwise it is an OK P&S, actually in most cases you do not notice the compression, but sometimes the compression shows a bit too much. Another gripe I have about the camera is the lack of separate power switch, I'd like to be able to leave the chosen setting on and just push the power button. It is not a big deal, but a separate switch would be more convenient. Cheers, Jukka |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Martin,
Actually Martin, there is more to it than that. Do I recall you as a person that worked on Photo CD back in the 80's here at Kodak? If so, greetings, if not sorry for the mistaken identity. Talk to you soon, Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company writes Hi Hap, I can appreciate your interest but it is unlikely that there will be a change to an already well designed compression algorithm. Truth is it took a great deal of time and effort on the part of our engineers to create the one in the camera now. You don't have to change the *algorithm* only the two tables of 64 numbers used to quantise the JPEG coefficients (and possibly just one number used to scale the master table). Kodak's compression on some cameras even at the "Finest" setting is too aggressive - detail gets lost. Regards, Martin Brown |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ron Baird
writes Hi Martin, Actually Martin, there is more to it than that. For instance? The JPEG standard is *very* tightly defined. Your options for the lossy step are pretty much limited to choosing the quantisation tables. The basic ground rules for JPEG must be followed in all implementations. Kodak uses custom quantisation tables (in the cameras I have examined). Adobe also use custom tables. Most other implementations based on IJG use scaled versions of the original example tables taken from JPEG(1994). Do I recall you as a person that worked on Photo CD back in the 80's here at Kodak? If so, greetings, if not sorry for the mistaken identity. Different Martin Brown. It's a very common name. I was an early adopter and fan of Kodak PCD image scans though. It was an excellent service while it lasted. Wrecked ultimately by dreadful marketing confusion and attempts to keep the format proprietary. Providing multiple hierarchical resolutions and no intrinsic blocking artefacts made PhotoCD ideal for high quality work. Even now it is still a useful baseline quality standard to judge modern slide scanners against - but in the early 90's it was way ahead of its time.. You don't have to change the *algorithm* only the two tables of 64 numbers used to quantise the JPEG coefficients (and possibly just one number used to scale the master table). Kodak's compression on some cameras even at the "Finest" setting is too aggressive - detail gets lost. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ron Baird
writes Hi Martin, Actually Martin, there is more to it than that. For instance? The JPEG standard is *very* tightly defined. Your options for the lossy step are pretty much limited to choosing the quantisation tables. The basic ground rules for JPEG must be followed in all implementations. Kodak uses custom quantisation tables (in the cameras I have examined). Adobe also use custom tables. Most other implementations based on IJG use scaled versions of the original example tables taken from JPEG(1994). Do I recall you as a person that worked on Photo CD back in the 80's here at Kodak? If so, greetings, if not sorry for the mistaken identity. Different Martin Brown. It's a very common name. I was an early adopter and fan of Kodak PCD image scans though. It was an excellent service while it lasted. Wrecked ultimately by dreadful marketing confusion and attempts to keep the format proprietary. Providing multiple hierarchical resolutions and no intrinsic blocking artefacts made PhotoCD ideal for high quality work. Even now it is still a useful baseline quality standard to judge modern slide scanners against - but in the early 90's it was way ahead of its time.. You don't have to change the *algorithm* only the two tables of 64 numbers used to quantise the JPEG coefficients (and possibly just one number used to scale the master table). Kodak's compression on some cameras even at the "Finest" setting is too aggressive - detail gets lost. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression | Ron Hunter | Digital Photography | 9 | August 9th 04 12:04 PM |
JPEG compression options -- can anybody explain? | Beowulf | Digital Photography | 3 | August 4th 04 02:17 AM |
A short study on digicam's fixed jpeg compression ratio | Heikki Siltala | Digital Photography | 23 | July 28th 04 08:49 AM |
Is the Kodak DX7630 a decent camera? | Don R | Digital Photography | 0 | July 21st 04 03:08 AM |