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
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
I need some help in explaining the JPEG compression feature in digital
cameras. My camera (which likely is similar to most others) has the feature to compress the photo JPEG files in the storage card. It also has the choice to have different pixel sizes (example: 3000x2250, 2000x1500, 1024x768, etc). What is the difference of the above two features? If you store a 3000x2250 pixel data in compressed mode, does it loose its quality? Can it be re-instated to full uncompressed size without loosing photo quality?. When I compressed the data, it will fit more pictures in a single storage card. But, is it the same if I choose 2000x1500 pixel and no compression instead? Thanks for info. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
wrote in message ups.com... I need some help in explaining the JPEG compression feature in digital cameras. My camera (which likely is similar to most others) has the feature to compress the photo JPEG files in the storage card. It also has the choice to have different pixel sizes (example: 3000x2250, 2000x1500, 1024x768, etc). What is the difference of the above two features? If you store a 3000x2250 pixel data in compressed mode, does it loose its quality? Can it be re-instated to full uncompressed size without loosing photo quality?. When I compressed the data, it will fit more pictures in a single storage card. But, is it the same if I choose 2000x1500 pixel and no compression instead? Thanks for info. Don't ask much, do you? Jpg is a lossy form of saving the picture - Google on 'explanation of jpg' and it will give you the detail - as distinct from compressed per se. As you have lost picture info you cannot get it back, so there is no way to regenerate the original intact. If you want to save in a non-compressed format you need to use TIFF (OK it is slightly compressed) or better still RAW which is just the raw data off the sensor without adjustment. The differences in resolution affect file size and quality of reproduction. 3000x2250 is about 6.7Mp, 2000x1500 is 3Mp, etc. For 'normal' printing at full frame (i.e. without cropping) 3Mp will produce an acceptable colour picture at A4 or thereabouts. For most day-to-day use 5Mp is enough, 6Mp is really the limit for a compact. If you go much higher than that you start to get digital noise in saturated colours due mainly to thermal effects in the sensor. Another point that is often missed is that the lenses on many compacts - particularly at the cheaper end of the market - often do not have the resolution in themselves to match the resolution of the sensor. In a nutshell, use RAW or TIFF if your camera has it, otherwise go for the best quality that the camera can provide - memory cards are dirt cheap these days. -- Woody harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
In rec.photo.digital harrogate3 wrote:
JPEG is a lossy form of saving the picture - The Bayer sensor is already lossy, having only one of RGGB at any of four pixel locations, so one could make the argument that JPEG imposes no further loss. Google on 'explanation of jpg' and it will give you the detail or read http://photo.net/jpeg/learn/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.photo.digital harrogate3 wrote: JPEG is a lossy form of saving the picture - The Bayer sensor is already lossy, having only one of RGGB at any of four pixel locations, so one could make the argument that JPEG imposes no further loss. You could argue that until you are blue in the face, and it still wouldn't be anything near correct though! :-) -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
JPEG is a lossy form of saving the picture - The Bayer sensor is already lossy, having only one of RGGB at any of four pixel locations, so one could make the argument that JPEG imposes no further loss. You could argue that until you are blue in the face, and it still wouldn't be anything near correct though! :-) I'm not going to argue it that long, but I would say that nobody has quantified the loss that comes from the Bayer sensor versus the loss that comes from JPEG. The real problem with JPEG is that it is not edit-safe, rather than loss of information at creation time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
In rec.photo.digital Bill Tuthill wrote:
I'm not going to argue it that long, but I would say that nobody has quantified the loss that comes from the Bayer sensor versus the loss that comes from JPEG. The real problem with JPEG is that it is not edit-safe, rather than loss of information at creation time. Is it not obvious to you that the "loss" from using a bayer sensor (which isn't really a loss in the same sense) and the loss due to JPEG compression are going to be cummulative in nature. Thus, the JPEG losses will only add to any losses due to using a bayer sensor. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
JPEG is a lossy form of saving the picture - The Bayer sensor is already lossy, having only one of RGGB at any of four pixel locations, so one could make the argument that JPEG imposes no further loss. You could argue that until you are blue in the face If you shot using raw you'd have a better chance of correcting it. Daniele |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
Bill Tuthill wrote:
In rec.photo.digital harrogate3 wrote: JPEG is a lossy form of saving the picture - The Bayer sensor is already lossy, having only one of RGGB at any of four pixel locations, so one could make the argument that JPEG imposes no further loss. However, JPEG imposes an additional loss, because of the approximations it makes. You can control the degree of approximation by the quality setting on cameras, or by the compression or quality settings in your software. David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ... JPEG is a lossy form of saving the picture - The Bayer sensor is already lossy, having only one of RGGB at any of four pixel locations, so one could make the argument that JPEG imposes no further loss. However, JPEG imposes an additional loss, because of the approximations it makes. You can control the degree of approximation by the quality setting on cameras, or by the compression or quality settings in your software. Here we go again! David, you and I get along OK. You're level headed and not any kind of elitist, while at the same time, you have an excellent foundation in the theory of all of this. I think the OP is a pretty rank novice and has probably gone unconscious by now in this thread. You have such a great way to express your ideas in words that people of all technical levels can understand that I bet you can do far better than my feeble attempt at helping the OP. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Compression in JPEG files in digital cameras
Bill Tuthill added these comments in the current discussion du jour
.... In rec.photo.digital harrogate3 wrote: JPEG is a lossy form of saving the picture - The Bayer sensor is already lossy, having only one of RGGB at any of four pixel locations, so one could make the argument that JPEG imposes no further loss. Google on 'explanation of jpg' and it will give you the detail or read http://photo.net/jpeg/learn/ Bill, I'm not nearly enough of a mathematicion to understand this, but it is WAY over the OP's head. Might it be better to describe the issue in more qualitative than theoretical ways he can understand? -- HP, aka Jerry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What program is best at JPEG compression? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 84 | August 7th 07 10:20 AM |
Controlling compression with (Nikon) digital cameras. | [email protected] | Advanced Photography | 4 | January 1st 05 03:11 AM |
Controlling compression with (Nikon) digital cameras. | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | January 1st 05 03:11 AM |
best compression for saving photos in jpeg? | Brian | Digital Photography | 14 | December 24th 04 12:59 PM |
JPEG compression | James Ramaley | Digital Photography | 14 | October 26th 04 01:41 AM |