Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   General Discussion (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 33437] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/%5Brecovered-thread-33437%5D-32350/)

Monza76 Aug 25, 2004 11:59 AM

I am only looking for a general comment here, and please don't make it "buy a bigger card". If you are stuck with not enough memory space is it generally better to go with more compression (low quality) or less compression with a smaller image size.

Here is my example:

My Pentax Optio 33L when set on 3.2MP high quality can put approximately 150 shots on a 256Mb card, set at medium quality it reports 284 shots and set on normal (low) quality that number jumps to 565. At full screen size (actual pixels) the difference is visible but not dramatic.

When set at 2MP high quality the number is 232, 464 at med and 1012 at low.

I have no intentions of using the lower quality 2MP modes however if you are limiting yourself to 4" X 6" prints which would be preferable, the medium quality 3.2MP or the top quality 2MP. I know that all cameras are different and I will test this out myself when I have time, but I was wondering if anyone has already examined this issue with a similar camera.

BTW compression on the Pentax is not that aggressive with high quality pictures usually coming out about 1.6 to 1.9Mb in size.

Ira



KCan Aug 25, 2004 12:06 PM

Monza76 wrote:
Quote:

If you are stuck with not enough memory space is it generally better to go with more compression (low quality) or less compression with a smaller image size.
My method is to compress more, rather thena lower resolution



Monza76 Aug 25, 2004 12:37 PM

My feeling was that this would be the better route, especially since the camera doesn't display many compression artifacts. Thanks.

Any one else have a comment?

Ira

JimC Aug 25, 2004 12:49 PM

It depends on the camera. Personally, I'd avoid the "basic" quality JPEG Compression mode onsome cameras I've owned. You just get too much loss in color range, detail, etc. that I don't think higher resolution makes up for it (not even mentioning that compression artifacts come into play). If you have visible artifacts shooting at higher resolution in the lowest quality JPEG mode, they're usually bad enough that they're visible when downsizing to the next lower resolution supported by the camera anyway.

So, if choosing between 3 Megapixels "Basic" JPEG Quality, or 2 Megapixels "Normal" JPEG Quality, I'd probably go with 2 Megapixels "Normal" JPEG Quality.

Now, if I needed to choose between 3 Megapixels "Normal" JPEG Quality, or 2 Megapixels "Fine" JPEG Quality; I'd probably go with 3 Megapixels "Normal" JPEG Quality in a pinch -- but definitely not the lowest quality compression mode with some models I've owned.


Monza76 Aug 25, 2004 1:38 PM

That is what I meant with my last post JimC, I wouldn't use the basic setting but instead use the "normal" 3MP mode rather than 2MP fine. If file sizes mean anything, the normal quality on my Pentax produces much larger files (about 1.2Mb) than the Fuji S5000 produces (at 3MP at least).

Ira


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:11 PM.