Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 28, 2004, 10:54 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8
Default

The 750 compression is 5.0 in normal settings. The file sizes for the same shot:
FZ10 normal=1476kb
FZ10 high on sharpness, contrast and saturation=1626kb
750 normal=2202kb

When post processed in PS with levels, USM and CA removal and saved at 12:
FZ10 high=3.47M
750 normal=3.42m

Maybe we have too much information!!

Jack
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
jack scholl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2004, 11:37 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack scholl
The 750 compression is 5.0 in normal settings. The file sizes for the same shot:
FZ10 normal=1476kb
FZ10 high on sharpness, contrast and saturation=1626kb
750 normal=2202kb
Then we are comparing the 750 at 5.0 bpp and the fz10 at 2.0 bpp which would certainly account for the larger file size on the 750 image.
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2004, 12:05 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8
Default

Fred,
I may have confused this issue. I was referring to sharpness, saturation and contrast, not image size or quality. All data was based on settings of "2304" for pic size and "fine" for quality.
Jack
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
jack scholl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2004, 12:34 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 55
Default

isn't the FZ10 at 4.0bpp?
chiks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 12:14 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 33
Default

hi Jack, it's Karen (from dpreview also, torn between FZ10/C750), check this thread (here at Steve's), 'FZ10 Firmware Upgrade' - i *think* it applies to what you've been asking about, and what i've been puzzled by, regarding clarity & detail.

this in particular caught my eye:

"I have an Olympus D40Z which is a 4MP compact camera that fits in my pocket. The files it produces can be over 2.5MB in size because they aren’t compressed as tightly as the FZ10, and they are noticeably sharper, provide more detail and have less noise than the FZ10. I am convinced that the lack of detail in the FZ10 is because of the heavy compression employed. I still like the camera, but I'm certain that the pictures would look better if they were allowed some "breathing room". It’s just a fact that the more an image is compressed, the worse it will look. Didn’t they add another level of compression to the FZ1/2 for this very reason? Someone must have thought the pictures would look better."
Karen 1031 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 12:56 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
I'm "the guy" you are referring to and I can assure you there has been no "screwing with the photos".
This is a blowup from one of your shots. Those are extreme JPG artifacts and I can guarantee the image didnít come from the camera that way. Since they are downloading as BMP I donít think the storage site could account for those artifacts.


Then compare your shots in these two posts: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7799097 and http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7766471 There is a big difference for the same shots. Looking at the FZ10 shot in the second link I think there might be something wrong with the camera or settings. Push the top control on the big control without pushing the Menu button first and make sure the EV is on zero Ė it looks as though it could be set high.

Quote:
FZ10 normal=1476kb
FZ10 high on sharpness, contrast and saturation=1626kb
750 normal=2202kb
I just went out and took 6 shots of the same scene from the same spot at 12X with my FZ10. 3 were with high and 3 with low sharpening. There wasnít basically any difference in file size and the highest of the 6 shots was one of the low sharpening shots. That difference was probably from framing slightly differently rather than an inherent difference in file size caused by sharpening. Low contrast gives the highest dynamic range and I would suspect low contrast might give the higher file size if there is any difference there at all.

If you look at Steveís sample photos the FZ10, JPGs vary from just over 1Mb for a shot with a lot of consistent white in it to a little over 1.7 Mb for shots with more complex images that canít be compressed as well. I think Steve takes these shots at standard settings. If you have a lot of consistent blue in the sky the compression can be much smaller than something with high complexity. Take a picture of a white sheet of paper and compare the resultant file size to a photo with a complex image Ė the file size will be double. TIFF and raw are always the same size from the same camera, but JPG varies quite a bit based on the subject. To come up with a number like 1476k for normal sharpening etc is silly approaching absurd.

If you compare Steveís sample photos of the same subject the difference isnít anywhere near double. The scene with the least sky is the playground and the Oly 750 is 2,092,252 compared to 1,619,103 for the FZ10. That ratio generally holds true for the shots of the same subject in his sample photos. If Jack is getting double for the same scene there is either something wrong with the settings or the camera.

I always set my cameras for minimum contrast and sharpening as that is the best approach for post processing and getting all of the dynamic range the little prosumer sensors are capable of. My other 2 cameras are a Minolta d7i and an Oly C50. After the images have gone through my standard batch Photoshop processing (I also save the originals) there isnít much to choose between them as far as sharpness. The converted raw images from the Minolta are a little richer, but the JPGs also end up quite similar. I donít have a 750 to compare them to, but I would guess they would also end up pretty much the same as well. With my workflow the FZ10 is taking photos that are better than I had anticipated with the higher JPG compression.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 12:56 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8
Default

Karen,

Have taken quite a few pics since the last posts. Have varied the sharpness and contrast settings, printed both the FZ10 and 750 pics and compared.

The FZ10 in my opinion is a significant increase in capabilities over the 750. The sharpness issue is very simply resolved by some limited post processing (usm). CA is noticeably less on the FZ10 (talk a look at our pbase inbox of the shot directly into the sun-could not find any CA which shocked me). The burst mode and extra zoom are really nice pluses. And the combination of IS and 2.8 makes low light shooting possible-which I thought we would need a DSLR for (the other new pic on pbase was a low light shot at dusk at a shutter speed of 1/13th sec-would not have tried this with the 750-the IS is a big deal for our use).

We will keep our 750 as a backup for my wife's use. But if we had to pick one, it would be real simple - the FZ10 is a winner. Your use may be different-you'll need to figure out what fits for you.

Keep in touch and let me know what you decide.

Jack
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
jack scholl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2004, 3:47 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack scholl
Karen,

The FZ10 in my opinion is a significant increase in capabilities over the 750. The sharpness issue is very simply resolved by some limited post processing (usm). CA is noticeably less on the FZ10 (talk a look at our pbase inbox of the shot directly into the sun-could not find any CA which shocked me). The burst mode and extra zoom are really nice pluses. And the combination of IS and 2.8 makes low light shooting possible-which I thought we would need a DSLR for (the other new pic on pbase was a low light shot at dusk at a shutter speed of 1/13th sec-would not have tried this with the 750-the IS is a big deal for our use).

We will keep our 750 as a backup for my wife's use. But if we had to pick one, it would be real simple - the FZ10 is a winner. Your use may be different-you'll need to figure out what fits for you.
thanks much Jack (and Kirwin for mentioning this post). will definitely factor your findings and conclusion into my decision. course seeing as how i was leaning towards C750..you've taken me back to where i started

::scream::

Karen
Karen 1031 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 5:25 AM.