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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Hi RJ,
Sounds like you are really enjoying your new camera. Digital is great is it not? The reason you do not see much a difference in the two formats is due to their being online or screen formats. The real difference will be later when you want to print your images. The larger the file (more information) the better the print can be. So, if you send a file for printing send a larger file. It will make a difference. Also, this is key in the capture of the image, i.e. capturing larger file sizes. If you are only going to use the images for selling things on eBay for example, then you do not need large files. If you are going to print however, use the best setting on your camera. Talk to you soon, RJ, Happy Holidays Ron Baird "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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hi RJ,
Sounds like you are really enjoying your new camera. Digital is great is it not? The reason you do not see much a difference in the two formats is due to their being online or screen formats. The real difference will be later when you want to print your images. The larger the file (more information) the better the print can be. So, if you send a file for printing send a larger file. It will make a difference. Also, this is key in the capture of the image, i.e. capturing larger file sizes. If you are only going to use the images for selling things on eBay for example, then you do not need large files. If you are going to print however, use the best setting on your camera. Talk to you soon, RJ, Happy Holidays Ron Baird "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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter:
Really? 100-200 KB per file from a 4 Mpixel camera? Wow, that's tough - those files won't tolerate a lot of editing or cropping, I'll bet. I had an old 2 Mpixel HP and it's (best resolution) files were 600-800 KB. And even then, they were only good for a bit of red-eye reduction or color adjustment, they didn't do well with cropping or enlarging at all - JPEG blocks, moire and jaggies everywhere. Even without cropping, the skys often had color banding from JPEG compression. As to the OP's questions, I think he'll have to learn for himself.... If he's happy with what he's got, more power. ECM |
|
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 07:30 PM |
Question about RAW file and image size | Anynomus | Digital Photography | 9 | November 7th 04 10:51 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 |