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

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

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

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

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

"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

"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

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

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

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