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
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts about File Size
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom. At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player. once again, I can't see any noticeable difference between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files. First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? rj |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom. At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player. once again, I can't see any noticeable difference between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files. First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? I sense a troll here. Try printing out at 8x10 with a poor resolution image like that, and use a very good printer. You will see the problems. Also, if your telephoto lens is not long enough, then your captured image will have a tiny subject in the center, which forces you to crop. So, you take your 3 MP image and take 10% out of the center. Now what do you have? With a high resolution camera, you can print and get good results, and you can also crop a center and still have enough data to produce a decent one. Viewing on the screen is a bad way to judge it. ---Bob Gross--- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom. At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player. once again, I can't see any noticeable difference between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files. First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? I sense a troll here. Try printing out at 8x10 with a poor resolution image like that, and use a very good printer. You will see the problems. Also, if your telephoto lens is not long enough, then your captured image will have a tiny subject in the center, which forces you to crop. So, you take your 3 MP image and take 10% out of the center. Now what do you have? With a high resolution camera, you can print and get good results, and you can also crop a center and still have enough data to produce a decent one. Viewing on the screen is a bad way to judge it. ---Bob Gross--- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RJ wrote:
First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? 1) To have greater freedom to "digitally zoom" (crop) later 2) To record/capture greater detail of your subject. Just two off the top of my head. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RJ wrote:
First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? 1) To have greater freedom to "digitally zoom" (crop) later 2) To record/capture greater detail of your subject. Just two off the top of my head. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. On your monitor, you may only be displaying the images at (for example) 1024 x 768, so about 3/4 MP. If you were to print out at 8 x 10 then the difference in using a lower compression (bigger file size) might be more apparent. But if the smaller size is good enough for what you need, keep using it! Cheers, David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. On your monitor, you may only be displaying the images at (for example) 1024 x 768, so about 3/4 MP. If you were to print out at 8 x 10 then the difference in using a lower compression (bigger file size) might be more apparent. But if the smaller size is good enough for what you need, keep using it! Cheers, David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
You won't see a difference on your monitor, and if that is all you intend to
do you will be fine. I wouldn't want to print them though. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "RJ" wrote in message ... I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom. At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player. once again, I can't see any noticeable difference between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files. First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? rj |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
You won't see a difference on your monitor, and if that is all you intend to
do you will be fine. I wouldn't want to print them though. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "RJ" wrote in message ... I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom. At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player. once again, I can't see any noticeable difference between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files. First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? rj |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera for about a month now. I've experimented with everyhing from scenics to close-ups. So far, I've been storing my pics as 100 200Kbyte JPG files. On my monitor, I really can't see any difference between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots. I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom. At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player. once again, I can't see any noticeable difference between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files. First premis; Why bother with the mega-size photo files ? Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic, or making poster-sized enlargements ?? Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ? rj No reason. If you are satisfied with the quality, I see no reason to try to make you dissatisfied. I have a 4mp Kodak, and the file sizes are about the same as yours, which is just a bit TOO much compression. I wish Kodak had given me an option for larger files, with less compression, although this only matters on 10% or less of my photos, it DOES matter sometimes. The larger the file, the more information that is stored. JPEG compression discards picture information. Usually, you can't notice, but on some subjects, it becomes noticeable. -- Ron Hunter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newbie: file size after editing . | ABC | Digital Photography | 8 | March 3rd 05 08:30 PM |
Question about RAW file and image size | Anynomus | Digital Photography | 9 | November 7th 04 11:51 PM |
Reducing File Size / Sharing Photos / Album Help | Dave | Digital Photography | 10 | September 16th 04 10:36 PM |
ISO and File Size Question | David J Taylor | Digital Photography | 7 | July 15th 04 12:50 AM |