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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2004, 3:31 AM   #31
BB
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

If there were to be firmware update, I would place the highest priority on fixing how the LCD and viewfinder are totally useless when using full manual mode in low light. In my opinion this qualifies as a serious design flaw and/or bug.

After that, I would like to see very low compression JPEG. TIFF is too impractical to be useful.
BB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 9:02 AM   #32
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3
Default

I'm definately getting the feeling that most people are more concerned with speed & conservation of space on their SD cards. I can't argue with that I guess. However, I need to find the right tool for the right job and if TIFF is not an option on an FZ series, I will be content with the wonderful FZ1/2 & keep looking around.
b.csako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 11:05 AM   #33
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 18
Default

being greedy, I'd like the current hq jpeg, a low/no compression jpeg (SHQ), and tiff. If I only get one, I'd use SHQ much more than tiff so would vote for a low compression SHQ as my first choice.

Thanks for asking!
l_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 12:22 PM   #34
VC
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
Default

SHQ JPEG over Tiff, for sure. It'd get a lot more use, and as has already been mentioned, in the sizes most people would be printing from this camera, a very low/no compression JPEG and a Tiff file would be indistinguishable.

Thanks for taking the time to ask the question and read the responses! Its always very cool to see a manufacturer listening to and interacting with the consumer.
VC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 3:05 PM   #35
Member
 
jjmead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 37
Default

Sorry, but no Jpeg compression = Tiff

Accually no. I did an experiment and saved a 23mb file as a:

bmp
tif (uncompressed)
tif (LZW compressed)
psd
psp
stn (Genuine Fractals)
jpeg (80%)
jpeg (90%)
jpeg (no compression)

The order from smallest to largest:

jpeg (80%)
jpeg (90%)
jpeg (no compression)
stn (Genuine Fractals)
psp
psd
tif (LZW compressed)
tif (uncompressed) & bmp

Even uncompressed jpeg losses some data so is still smaller. The differance in the stn, psd & psp was not much.

--------------
adder
jjmead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 6:26 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 141
Default

I wonder how much compression actually takes place now on our FZ-10's?

My average file size of 1.6 MB, and a 256MB SD card now holds about 150 shots. What would a TIFF or RAW file size be in comparison? If a lower compression JPEG file would keep the number of photos at least half of the current levels, I could live with that. Any ideas?
srvsd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 8:13 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Klaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 164
Default

"Even uncompressed jpeg losses some data so is still smaller. The differance in the stn, psd & psp was not much"


jpeg has a separate lossless compression standard (not found in Photoshop), even that standard uses compression so no-compression jpeg does not exist.

Normal jpeg as we know it is a "lossy" compression method, even if the human eye can't see it information is lost. I would vote for Tiff as I post process all my images in Photoshop. It would be nice to start with a uncompressed image.

In camera write time won't be an issue, with a high speed SD card (10MB/sec)it would be just over 1 second for a Tiff file.
Klaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 8:58 PM   #38
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 24
Default

thats why i would like both options,

tiff is uncompressed but fills the card too fast, and for most stuff i woudnt use it,but for some nicer works, "special"prints id use tiff, becouse jps always loses. And also, jpgloses qualityevery time you save the file after edition, so if I edit a file in ps jpg or tiff,ill save it as tiff, and maybe do a jpg version for web or something.
Frederico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 9:30 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 272
Default

RAW is compressed too, but I doubt we'll ever see that on the FZ10.
Guerito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 10:19 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 141
Default

Interestingly, on the SanDisk website, they list approximate capacities of their cards. For an uncompressed image on a 4MP camera, the size is around 9.50MB meaning 26 images on a 256MB card. A compressed file is around 1.9MB meaning 134 images on the same card.

I already think the photos are pretty good. Maybe compression that makes the files twice the current size would be enough to satisfy more demanding photographers. I've already got 2000+ images on my laptop. If they were all around 10MB, that would be 200GB in photos alone! I'd have to buy large new hard drives all of the time.
srvsd 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 3:31 PM.