Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 3, 2003, 8:22 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 137
Default Response from Fuji on S7000 compression and noise

I sent a message to Fuji tech support and asked if they were addressing the jpeg over compression and/or "noise" in S7000 photos. Their response today stated that they were not aware of any known issues in these two areas to be addressed. Wondering if this is a typical Fuji response and if I should be concerned as I am getting ready to purchase an S7000. Or have the "problems" been overstated in the reviews I have read? I see so many posts from satisfied users that I'm beginning to think that the problems (if they indeed exist) are so minimal as to not affect practical use of the S7000.
Clyde Atkinson
Clyde Atkinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 4, 2003, 11:27 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 137
Default Obviously, this isn't a place to get answers

Posted the original post and hoped to get some reassurance that I was making the correct choice in the S7000. Can't buy a reply here, but on another list (which I posted to later) I got many replies and advice. I certainly won't bother posting here again.
Clyde Atkinson
Clyde Atkinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2003, 2:12 AM   #3
Member
 
faizal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 55
Default Re: Response from Fuji on S7000 compression and noise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clyde Atkinson
I see so many posts from satisfied users that I'm beginning to think that the problems (if they indeed exist) are so minimal as to not affect practical use of the S7000.
Clyde Atkinson
Yup, i'm one of them!
faizal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2003, 11:11 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
I see so many posts from satisfied users
You know, will you be satisfied or no depends only on you. I mean no offence, but to remember, that happiest people in this world - clinical idiots. :lol:
Klyak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2003, 1:23 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Clyde - I looked into this a while ago during and after the time I bought my S602. I was starting to feel that as the Mpix went up and the justification was larger output prints, that the level of compression should be a variable user control, instead of the fixed levels with arbitary quality descriptions found in most cameras. I think the 602 could have squeezed a bit more quality with a 10-20% reduction in compression, as these are the artifacts I mainly see and can't do much about (except shoot TIFF).

I think on launch of bigger Mpix cameras, manufacturers are nervous about offering lower compression requiring more memory, less pics per card and slowing up the camera read/write responses. They'd also have to include more than their usual 16Mb card in the box!

From the research I did downloading different camera user manuals (That's where you have to go) giving file sizes, at the time some of the Canons offered the bigger file sizes (less compression) mode options. If there is no RAW or TIFF option, your quality level threshold is determined by the amount of compression. What I dislike about most camera defaults, is you don't see artefacts on detailed scene shots, until you get back and it's too late.

Many here have said that older 2Mpix cams can give excellent enlargements. I think if you look at the file sizes per Mpix these cameras produce, compared to some recent cameras, you have an answer. Of course most of the time you aren't shooting critical material so now there is the marketing trade off for a faster camera giving more shots per card than its competitor! VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2003, 5:30 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 386
Default

The 2mp Canon Ixus I previous used had also compression and sensor noise beyond control, hardly usable for enlargements, unless..

Some scenes are easier / more foregiving when containing noise. And jpeg compression noise also depends on the image. Convert a simple black white drawing to various jpeg quality and compression aura's are more obvious than with an image with abundant smooth color transiscions.

Jpeg stand for Joint Photographic Experts Group, a graphic file format developped to exchange photos. I always assumed that if camera said 'jpeg fine quality' mode the manufacturer ment absolute max quality (which is still a bit crippling the raw data). http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/

Time for camera manufacturers to open up about which jpeg compression they use for each quality mode?
Mathilde uP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2003, 3:49 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klyak
Quote:
I see so many posts from satisfied users
You know, will you be satisfied or no depends only on you. I mean no offence, but to remember, that happiest people in this world - clinical idiots. :lol:
LOOOOL. Klyak, excellent point made ) :lol: Will remember that too.
veedee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2003, 12:27 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

...........Time for camera manufacturers to open up about which jpeg compression they use for each quality mode?.........

The JPEG standard is really only a toolkit which if implemented correctly, ensures decoded playback of compressed images. The terminology used by camera manufacturers is synonomous with GT,GXL, GLS etc used for autos. It's not a specification, but a marketing description so you can't compare 2 cameras both set to HQ Fine and assume they are compressing to the same degree. The only clue for the same detailed scene is probably the compressed file size. Look at most editors, they save compressed JPEG on a continuous perecentage scale. The percentages are only useful for people with the same package as a comparison point.

My point was, that I can't see why cam manufacturers can't incorporate a similar continuous percentage option. The photographer then chooses how big he can afford the output file to be. VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2003, 6:44 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 386
Default

Or atleast guarantee that fine mode uses least possible compression?
Mathilde uP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2003, 7:48 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

All JPEG compression is lossy!

There must be some results based on subjective testing and a factor which can be standardised. Most tests will have been done on very critical scenes. If you think about the uncompressed file size you see in PS when a file opens, most cameras are doing about 10:1. When flash memory was small, expensive and processors were slower, the name of the game was to sell on the number of pics per card size. I don't think this is such an issue now and probably file sizes around 1 Mbyte per Mpix in JPEG are quite affordable in memory terms on the few occasions you might want less compression and don't want to fill a card with TIFFs or RAW.

In the same way that cam makers can provide a histogram for exposure, It must be possible to offer something similar which shows how well compression is coping with scene detail. It's all to do with the DCT coefficients for the macro blocks! VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM.