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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2007, 9:31 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
big_potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 487
Default

But no matter the mean
[whether ASIC (very unlikely due to high cost & lack of flexibility), OR programmable firmware]

The outcome is simply Kodak JPEG over-compression (not sure intention or what) lacks the details in the images which an average consumer DC user would expect to have.

The difficulty to implement improvements (due to bad design in the first place) is NOT an excuse to keep things in low quality.

big_potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2007, 1:58 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default

It would be an astoundingly poor engineering decision to hardwire JPG compression and noise reduction parameters into an ASIC, although the algorithms themselves might very well be.

It is almost certainly possible to enable different JPG compression rates and noise reduction parameters through firmware modifications.
NathanShumaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2007, 3:42 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4
Default

It's ok to be skeptical. I'm not a regular here and you don't know my background. I am a software developer of almost 12yrs. I'm quite familiar with hacking applications but am afraid to modify firmware since one mistake will render a device useless.

If you need a piece of sample firmware to look at, you can find it for a 5mp camera(the v550 I believe) under Kodak's download site. Notice there are options in the firmware to enable Raw/JPEG.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi...l?pq-path=7175

The V1233 and v1253 use a .pak file which is essentially acompressed/encrypted set of files (demo movies and firmware file) which is extracted in the cam and installed.
I believe these cameras can accept a .fw file directly as the kodak software will upload this file to the cam. I am guessing one way to retrieve the .fw file may be to grab it after ithas been extracted on the camera itself as I can't determine what format the .pak file is.

One site has reported success in modifying the jpeg algorithm. this doesn't necessarily solve the noise reduction or enable raw. This is why I decided to go the petition route.

Bob


bfrasure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 1:26 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default

It might be relatively safe and easy to change the JPG compression rate by modifying the quantization table(s) (QT). These numbers are necessarily embedded in JPGs produced by the camera so that the JPGs can be decoded.

If an uncompressed, unencrypted firmware image is available, it might be possible to locate the QT values in the firmware image with a good hex editor -- no assembler skills required. Reducing these values closer to 1 should correspondingly improve JPG quality.

From Kodak's point of view, this solution is probably inefficient since Kodak may implement a single quantization coefficient that can scale the values in the QT.
NathanShumaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2008, 12:40 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Default

Dear All,

Just come across this thread whilst searching for answers. Is this why I am seeing the issue below?

I have bought my 8 year old her first camera ( an attempt to get someone in the family on side when I want to stop the car the go looking for another picture) anyway she has a kodak 8mp point and shoot. It is set to max resolution but is producing smaller jepg files than myother camera, a canon 7mp.

Also when I look at the kodak website it says that a 1 gb sd card should be able to hold 301 pictures. we have a 2gb card in the kodak but the camera says we can take 1664 pictures.

Kodak say a 256md sd card should hold 75 pictures (about the same as what the canon 7mp camera says) but our kodak camera says 211 pictures remaining.

Today I have placed a 2gb SD card in 8mp cameras from Fuji, Nikon, canon and kodak (three cameras -2 were C813's) the results were that at max resolution theFuji said it could hold 472 pictures
Canon 600
Nikon 601
Both kodaks 1600.

Is agressive jpeg compression the only explanation here?

Best regards



Josh

josh Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2008, 9:14 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

I have posted 100% crops of a set of test photos taken with my Z612 set at fine, standard and basic compression here: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=18.

I think it will be difficult to tell them apart without the labels.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2008, 4:38 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Default

I signed the petition since I have a Z1275 but I was only # 72. Kodak aren't going to change for 72 people.
Spec-V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2008, 2:07 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1
Default

I've signed it too.

I've had a few kodak cameras, my current being the z712is, previous to that was the CX7430. I have to say that I was more impressed with the final picture from my 7430 than from my current z712is.

I took a picture ofa structure that was quite far away, using the optical zoom but no manual zoom, and it came out all dithery and jagged, the jpg compression basically ruined the picture.
waynedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2008, 3:26 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

waynedl wrote:
Quote:
I've signed it too.

....my current being the z712is......I took a picture ofa structure that was quite far away, using the optical zoom but no manual zoom, and it came out all dithery and jagged, the jpg compression basically ruined the picture.
On my Z712is, the optical zoomis the manual zoom. If you mean the digital zoom, you can expect that to be jagged; it's the same as cropping and then blowing up an image.

I have no trouble at all with jpeg artefacts on my Z712is, unless I take cropping and enlargement to extremes.

Here is a 1:1 clip (pixel for pixel) from a recent 7.1 Mpix 'fine' compression hand-held shot at full 12x optical zoom (432mm equiv.).It isn't quite as as sharp as I'd like, because it was hand-held (the bee kept moving to a new flower). It's a bit noisy, but that's to be expected at 1:1 from the little sensor in a small camera. This isn't a dSLR!

You can see a more artistic version of more of the frame at... http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=592483&forum_id=7&jump_t o=896960#p896960
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2008, 10:11 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

waynedl wrote:
Quote:
I've signed it too.

I've had a few kodak cameras, my current being the z712is, previous to that was the CX7430. I have to say that I was more impressed with the final picture from my 7430 than from my current z712is.

I took a picture ofa structure that was quite far away, using the optical zoom but no manual zoom, and it came out all dithery and jagged, the jpg compression basically ruined the picture.
Just my experience but jaggies are typically caused by the viewing software when viewing at low magnifications (20%-50%). If they are reduced or dissappear as the magnification increases toward 100% then it's the viewing software. If, on the other hand the "jaggies" get worse when magnifications are increased then you are looking at jpeg compression artifacts. I did some specific controlled tests (link posted elsewhere in this thread) and could see no difference between fine, standard and basic in those tests. Later however I did find compression artifacts in the Duck pictures (loaded in this forum I think) usingbasic compression. The artifacts were apparent in the low contrast fine texture of the gray belly feathers rather than the high contrast separation of wing and body feathers or other high contrast lines. This was rather by accident as I thought I'd reset to fine after my formal tests but hadn't.

A. C.


ac.smith 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 12:34 PM.