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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2004, 11:32 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Klaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 164
Default

srvsd wrote:
Quote:
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.

After post-processing in Photoshop I would save the picture in a high quality jpeg format on my hard disk and burn the original tiff file on a cd or dvd.
Klaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 9:03 AM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3
Default

YES! (to the reponses above). That's what I have basically been trying to express. TIFF is a terrific added OPTION to those of us who would want to use it being fully aware of any write time & card space issues. People don't HAVE to use it all the time--or at all--and it won't diminish the value of the camera. In fact, it's more "value-added." (Thinking in marketing terms)
Bottom line: it's another terrific feature/ option, adding versatility and appeal to a wider market of digital camera users.
b.csako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 9:08 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

Bob -Additional opinions (with some redundancy) at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=9210544
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 7:30 PM   #44
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 21
Default

b.csako wrote:
Quote:
YES! (to the reponses above). That's what I have basically been trying to express. TIFF is a terrific added OPTION to those of us who would want to use it being fully aware of any write time & card space issues. People don't HAVE to use it all the time--or at all--and it won't diminish the value of the camera. In fact, it's more "value-added." (Thinking in marketing terms)
Bottom line: it's another terrific feature/ option, adding versatility and appeal to a wider market of digital camera users.

The way Bob put the question, "Currently the FZ10 offer two JPG levels of compression. If you had your choice would you prefer to see the low compression set even lower OR add TIFF? Assume RAW was not available? Im trying to settle a debate I had as to which is more important?" he is giving an either or choice. That is, if you could have only ONE option, which would you choose? Of course, if I could have both I would take both. However, having to pick one for me it would be SHQJPEG. as that is what I would use and would rarely if ever use TIFF. TIFF is not a useful option for those of us who don't like the write time or space useage, especially if that would mean a less compressed JPEG option would not be available. Those of us who favor the higher quality JPEG aren't saying, "Don't offer TIFF" -- just that in having to make a choice we would choose a less compressed JPEG format.

Clint751 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 9:55 PM   #45
Member
 
aghauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 96
Default

Clint751 wrote:
Quote:
Those of us who favor the higher quality JPEG aren't saying, "Don't offer TIFF" -- just that in having to make a choice we would choose a less compressed JPEG format.

And in the same way we would prefer to have RAW if possible but BOB isn't giving us that choice
aghauri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2004, 9:06 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Panasonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 321
Default

WOW!

Just asking a simple question to settle a debate I had at lunch really started a debate! Thanks.

Actually, I had a secondary agenda that was confirmed.At lunch several people had no idea what TIFFwas.

Several people commented that TIFF was "unusable" Are these people unaware of programs like Photoshop or Paintshop Pro? I'm wondering if JPG was chosen because of a lack of knowledge about TIFF?
Panasonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2004, 1:57 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 272
Default


There doesn't seem to be any debate to the fact that many people are hungry for a better compression scheme, something I was asking for months ago. My guess is that Panasonic will want us to buy a new camera rather than providing a firmware upgrade like they did with the FZ1.
Guerito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2004, 3:00 PM   #48
VC
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
Default

Panasonic wrote:
Quote:
WOW!

Just asking a simple question to settle a debate I had at lunch really started a debate! Thanks.

Actually, I had a secondary agenda that was confirmed.At lunch several people had no idea what TIFFwas.

Several people commented that TIFF was "unusable" Are these people unaware of programs like Photoshop or Paintshop Pro? I'm wondering if JPG was chosen because of a lack of knowledge about TIFF?

I don't think that is necessarily the case. I know what TIFF is, and because of that I know I would never use it. Even if I had a RAW setting, IMIGHT use it once in a blue moon, but a lower compression JPEG would get far, far more use. TIFF is just too big a file to be practical when JPEGs can be of similar quality in a much smaller file.

VC
VC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2004, 6:52 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Klaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 164
Default

Panasonic wrote:
Quote:
WOW!

Just asking a simple question to settle a debate I had at lunch really started a debate! Thanks.

Actually, I had a secondary agenda that was confirmed.At lunch several people had no idea what TIFFwas.

Several people commented that TIFF was "unusable" Are these people unaware of programs like Photoshop or Paintshop Pro? I'm wondering if JPG was chosen because of a lack of knowledge about TIFF?
Some want Tiff (including me), others want SHQ Jpeg, we are not going to agree on this one. It would be nice if one could tweak it's own firmware in a computer program I think. Or maybe Panasonic could distribute different firmware versions for let's say "point-and-shooters" and more advanced photographers. I think that would bind a lot of people to the Panasonic brand and attract a lot of new customers!

Klaas Bloem
Klaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2004, 7:00 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Klaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 164
Default

I would also like to have true A/S/M settings on the dial at the cost of some of it's auto functions and I hate to push the exposure button every time I want to change my exposure settings in manual mode.

Klaas Bloem
Klaas 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 10:44 PM.