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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 27, 2006, 7:20 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
Default

Thanks, Boily. You do a service in posting that.
domang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2006, 1:14 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Nice comparison! But...I wonder if digital cameras will ever start to use the .png format... I believe its higher quality than JPEG. But, maybe not as much compression. (don't know.)

Anyway, I use Linux. So, I don't think I could edit the P850's RAW files without the EasyShare software... I'll have to use one of the other PCs in our house for that.

-En121
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2006, 10:56 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
scrappynik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 486
Default

Thanks for showing a comparision! Maybe I'll mess around with the RAW format tomorrow and see what I can come up with...

Nik
scrappynik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 11:25 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

It is unlikely that cameras will even use .png, which I believe is a lossless microsoft format. Microsoft is also making a .wmp format, which is similar, but again, it's random microsoft garbage. What we really need is a camera with the option of shooting lossless JPEGs.

And that is a nice comparison Boily, I mainly shoot JPEGs because I don't want to fill up my puny 80GB Harddrive too quickly, hehe.

En121 wrote:
Quote:
Nice comparison! But...I wonder if digital cameras will ever start to use the .png format... I believe its higher quality than JPEG. But, maybe not as much compression. (don't know.)

Anyway, I use Linux. So, I don't think I could edit the P850's RAW files without the EasyShare software... I'll have to use one of the other PCs in our house for that.

-En121
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2006, 6:05 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Well, micro$oft bites in genaral.

I didn't know .png was a Microsoft format. and, I don't think it is. I'll look it up...

-En121
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2007, 12:14 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 51
Default

Png is not a Microsoft format. Read more here: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/book/chapter07.html

I would like to see png replace jpg in digital cameras. I can't understand why we're still dealing with a lossy format when we have HUGE memory cards available at incredibly affordable prices.
leaftye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2007, 7:27 AM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

En121 wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, I use Linux. So, I don't think I could edit the P850's RAW files without the EasyShare software...
This is an old thread that was just bumped.

But, since I noticed it, I'll make a comment.

You've got *lots* of options for processing your raw files in Linux.

Many raw converters use Dave Coffin's dcraw.c source code (it's ANSI standard C) for raw conversion. Then, they add their own user interface, extra features, and more.

Here's a good free Image Management System for Linux that supports raw files (and you can convert in batch mode, too):

http://www.digikam.org/?q=about/features09x

Here are a couple of raw converters you may want to look at (and there are a number of others)

Raw Therapee

UFRaw



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2007, 1:58 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3
Default

To conclude that the difference is related to .jpg compression is akin to concluding the world is flat based on our view of the horizon.

A far more plausable explanation of the difference is Kodak color processing within the camera computer- the output of which is the .jpg file that Kodak cameras are perpetually dinged for.

I feel this position is somewhat supported as I look at the colors- for example, look at the green of the tree, and the roof of the house. My guess is that a fair assessment would reveal that the real life objects look more like the objects in the .jpg (roof in particular), vs. the lighter tone in the raw. Clouds aside (different discussion). I know houses like that- to my eye, they look like the .jpg.

Kodak color processing must be a factor in this difference.
dholm94596 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2007, 5:01 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

dholm94596 wrote:
Quote:
...Kodak color processing must be a factor in this difference.
I revolutionised the output of my jpg-only Z712is when I learnt to turn up the 'colour mode' to 'High' as a default. This is not as saturated as it sounds. It restores it to what I was used to with all my previous digicams, and it's still not as saturated as many results I have seen from other people's digicams.
Alan T 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 4:17 AM.