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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Attn: Ron Baird - Kodak DX7630 high jpeg 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 |
Kodak DX7630 or HP 945 ? | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 16 | July 22nd 04 01:38 PM |
Is the Kodak DX7630 a decent camera? | Don R | Digital Photography | 0 | July 21st 04 03:08 AM |