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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 29, 2003, 7:38 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3
Default JPEG compression in Kodak DX6490

Hello,

I'm getting to buy a DC and the Kodak DX6490 is one of the most strong candidates. But, looking for informations about this camera I discovered that the its JPEG compression is too agressive. Can this compression compromise the quality of the photographies? And what about other DCs, like Minolta Z1, Canon G3/G5, can you tell me something about the JPEG compression?
luizfernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 30, 2003, 5:44 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6
Default

Yes it can and it does bring down the quality to a Small extent..What I didn't like about the camera is the fact that you CAN NOT ajust the compression levels..I used the camera for 8 days and returned it and bought a Canon G5 and I am much happier now..Just my 2 cents worth..Also I had problems finding thr KLIC 5001 battery that came with the camera..(I also didnt like that)
Shane492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2003, 7:20 AM   #3
Member
 
gapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 47
Default DX6490 is good but for sure not a great choice !

Hi there ! I just read the review of DX6490 from Steves and Dcresource. It seems that DX6490 have a great improvement over the past Kodak DC ! However, it's price is not really cheap ! (My opinion). Instead, if you don't mind downgrade 1 megapixels, I strongly suggest you buy the Minolta Z1 ! It have faster response and can record better movie quality !
gapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2003, 3:06 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
What I didn't like about the camera is the fact that you CAN NOT ajust the compression levels
Quote:
Also I had problems finding thr KLIC 5001 battery that came with the camera
These are exactly the bad points I thought about the Kodak. They develop a wonderful camera and fail on simple points that really make differences in our choices. What are the difficulties in implement a feature that allows you to configure what compression level do you want?
luizfernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2003, 2:25 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 96
Default

A 12x18" enlargement of a 4mpx (actually 3.5 mpx after cropping) image from my DX6490 didn't show any noticeable degredation: the print really looks terrific. The compression level is about 6 (on a 1-100 scale with 1 being minimal compression), which is the same as it was on the DC290. While a compression level of 3 would be ideal, the level they're using doesn't actually seem to be a drawback.

A 12x18" of an image taken by a 5mpx Sony also looks terrific, but since it is of an entirely different scene, the two prints can't be compared for tonal quality.

Luizfernando's point about Kodak "almost" getting things right is well taken: the physical implementation of the camera is excellent, and most of the Firmware-controlled capabilities are excellent also; but there are some annoying omissions in the Firmware (not in the hardware, fortunately). Having had a DC290 for the past 3-1/2 years, I know that Kodak made several improvements to that Firmware in the first year after the camera was released. Those improvements included responses to user suggestions, so perhaps we will see the same attitude here.

For the most part, the DX6490 offers the capabilities I've wanted: it can take at least 10 4mpx images fairly quickly (2.5 second pause between each), then an unlimited number of additional images with a 6 second pause between each. (It also has a burst mode that takes 6 images in 2 seconds, but that's not the same thing.) The 10x zoom works well (if my hand is steady), and the camera has whatever degree of automatic vs manual control I happen to want at the moment (no manual zoom, but it shows you the focus point in advance, so you can recompose if necessary).

Besides more Jpeg compression choices, it would also be nice to be able to save RAW files and have Kodak software in the computer to convert them to Jpeg or TIFF. And, I haven't found a source for the KLIC-5001 battery yet either.
Charlie Howard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2003, 7:51 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2
Default

Here's my post about the DX6440 JPEG compression issue. I think it is an issue if you compare to other cameras.


I recently bought a 4M pixel Kodal DX6440 from Future Shop in Canada to replace my HP618 2M pixel camera. I read all the reviews/opinions that I could find online which indicated it was a good camera with great pictures due to the great 4x optical lens it had. I also liked the fact it used AA batteries and could imprint the date on pictures which I had on my HP618. Here are my thoughts on the DX6440.

1. I've taken 300-400 pictures in the last few days and it is actually a very nice camera to use. The 4x zoom is great, autofocus and shot to shot times are quite good. Flash pics look good also - good coverage. The downside is picture sharpness. The pictures when viewed on my 17" PC monitor are not as sharp as those from my HP618. Although I haven't had any of them printed I suspect the prints wouldn't be quite as sharp either, but would probably be less noticeable. The reason appears to be that Kodak uses a strong JPEG compression algorithm which makes small JPEG files but robs much of the sharpness available in a 4M sensor. The file size is usually 900-1100 Kbytes which allows 250-300 pictures on a 256Mbyte SD flash card. My HP618 had file sizes in a similar range and it was only a 2Mpixel camera but has 3 levels of JPEG compression. The quality settings on the DX6440 camera only adjust the number of piixels used (4M, 2M, 1M) not the JPEG compression level.

2. The date imprint feature puts large yellow text in the right lower area of the pic. I find the text font too large and yellow is not a great color. The text should be much smaller, have color choice and be placed closer to the lower right hand edge of the pic.

3. The wide/tele rocker switch seems more sensitive on the tele setting than wide setting. To zoom out I have to press harder than zooming in. This may be a sample defect.

4. The diopter adjustment knob is very stiff and difficult to adjust. I assume this is a sample defect.

5. I find the color balance/brightness of pictures compared to my HP618 less pleasing.

6. The USB connection when hooking up to WinXP works, but is pretty slow, much slower than my older HP618. It seems to hang sometimes when I try to delete pics. I travel some and want to be able to offload to my laptop easily via USB. I haven't tried the docking station that came with the camera to see if it is any faster.


As you may have guessed, I'm planning to returning this camera. It's too bad Kodak hamstrings a great little camera with a poor picture quality adjustment scheme. I suspect the 3 Megapixel DX6340 suffers the same issue

I'm thinking my main alternatives are the Pentax Optio 450 or HP935. :? :?
john brig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2003, 2:35 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 96
Default

Agreed; see my post here: http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...ghlight=dx6490
Charlie Howard 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 10:19 PM.