HQ vs SHQ Compression

dick52717 · Jul 22, 2001

Hello all,

Re: HQ vs SHQ

Recently, I talked to Olympus about the compression ratios of the various record modes in my D490Z. These are the numbers they gave me:

SQ - not a consideration
SQ HIGH - 8.0:1
HQ --------- 4.0:1
SHQ ------- 2.7:1
SHQ-TIFF - Not compressed
(SQ HIGH resolution is 640 X 480, the others are 1600 X 1200)

I’m planning to use some photos in a book - just a simple folded 8-1/2 X 11 type, not a fancy hard cover volume. The published photos will all be less than 4” X 6” in size.

Since the photos will be taken overseas, memory storage is an issue, because I don't want to buy piles of memory cards.

So the question is:
Has anyone had experience publishing HQ and SHQ photos?
If so, what was the outcome?

Thanks in advance. ****

kbelloise42680 · Jul 22, 2001

I don't notice any difference between TIFF and SHQ.

SHQ should be fine for you. I'm not sure what resolution settings you have, but you may be able to save some space by using a lower resolution as well, if all you want is 4x6 prints. 640x480 may be a little small, but if you have something in between 1600x1200 and 640x480 try using that on SHQ.

Karen

**** said:
Hello all,

Re: HQ vs SHQ

Recently, I talked to Olympus about the compression ratios of the
various record modes in my D490Z. These are the numbers they gave
me:

SQ - not a consideration
SQ HIGH - 8.0:1
HQ --------- 4.0:1
SHQ ------- 2.7:1
SHQ-TIFF - Not compressed
(SQ HIGH resolution is 640 X 480, the others are 1600 X 1200)

I’m planning to use some photos in a book - just a simple
folded 8-1/2 X 11 type, not a fancy hard cover volume. The
published photos will all be less than 4” X 6” in size.

Since the photos will be taken overseas, memory storage is an
issue, because I don't want to buy piles of memory cards.

So the question is:
Has anyone had experience publishing HQ and SHQ photos?
If so, what was the outcome?

Thanks in advance. ****

Pius · Jul 22, 2001

**** said:
Recently, I talked to Olympus about the compression ratios of the
various record modes in my D490Z. These are the numbers they gave
me:
SQ - not a consideration
SQ HIGH - 8.0:1
HQ --------- 4.0:1
SHQ ------- 2.7:1
SHQ-TIFF - Not compressed
(SQ HIGH resolution is 640 X 480, the others are 1600 X 1200)

Hi ****,

I've had my share of wrong answers from Oly people. Not many digicams offer compression lower than 4:1. See Olympus web page on this liink: http://www.olympusamerica.com/product_specs.asp?product=637

An uncompressed 1600x1200 image at 8 bits per RGB channel occupies about 5.76 MB, so an SHQ compressed size of 1.3MB is about 4:1, not 2.7:1. Likewise, HQ at 470KB is more like 12:1, SQ2 at 220KB about 26:1, and SQ1 at 75KB about 76:1.

Pius

Pius · Jul 22, 2001

Pius said:
An uncompressed 1600x1200 image at 8 bits per RGB channel occupies
about 5.76 MB, so an SHQ compressed size of 1.3MB is about 4:1, not
2.7:1. Likewise, HQ at 470KB is more like 12:1, SQ2 at 220KB about
26:1, and SQ1 at 75KB about 76:1.

Oops, my mistake. SQ1 and SQ2 are 640x480, so their uncompressed size is about 0.92 MB. SQ2 at 220KB is about 4:1, and SQ1 at 75KB is about 12:1.

Sorry for the confusion.

Pius

dick52717 · Jul 22, 2001

Pius said:
I've had my share of wrong answers from Oly people. Not many
digicams offer compression lower than 4:1. See Olympus web page on
this liink:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/product_specs.asp?product=637

An uncompressed 1600x1200 image at 8 bits per RGB channel occupies
about 5.76 MB, so an SHQ compressed size of 1.3MB is about 4:1, not
2.7:1. Likewise, HQ at 470KB is more like 12:1, SQ2 at 220KB about
26:1, and SQ1 at 75KB about 76:1.

Pius

Thanks for the calculations and the site address. I 'll have to spend some time there. ****

s k u l p t · Jul 22, 2001

For print work, I'd try to stick with SHQ mode at 1600X1200. A Compression too high will make image look too digital and flat.

I'd recommend getting a 128mb card. With my C3000, I can hold 70 2000x1500 SHQ mode images. I would imagine the 490 is a 2 megapixel camera, so you could hold more like 120 or something. Considering you can delete the pictures you don't like from the camera directly, that's pretty good.

Brian

**** said:
Pius said:

I've had my share of wrong answers from Oly people. Not many
digicams offer compression lower than 4:1. See Olympus web page on
this liink:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/product_specs.asp?product=637

An uncompressed 1600x1200 image at 8 bits per RGB channel occupies
about 5.76 MB, so an SHQ compressed size of 1.3MB is about 4:1, not
2.7:1. Likewise, HQ at 470KB is more like 12:1, SQ2 at 220KB about
26:1, and SQ1 at 75KB about 76:1.

Pius

Click to expand...

Thanks for the calculations and the site address. I 'll have to
spend some time there. ****

Juli Valley · Aug 4, 2001

**** said:
Hello all,

Re: HQ vs SHQ

Recently, I talked to Olympus about the compression ratios of the
various record modes in my D490Z. These are the numbers they gave
me:

SQ - not a consideration
SQ HIGH - 8.0:1
HQ --------- 4.0:1
SHQ ------- 2.7:1
SHQ-TIFF - Not compressed
(SQ HIGH resolution is 640 X 480, the others are 1600 X 1200)

I’m planning to use some photos in a book - just a simple
folded 8-1/2 X 11 type, not a fancy hard cover volume. The
published photos will all be less than 4” X 6” in size.

Since the photos will be taken overseas, memory storage is an
issue, because I don't want to buy piles of memory cards.

So the question is:
Has anyone had experience publishing HQ and SHQ photos?
If so, what was the outcome?

Thanks in advance. ****

I always shoot in the highest jpeg mode. I have just bought a Digital Wallet for travelling. It's a portable, compact 10 gig hard drive. It's pricey but not as pricey or problematic and using a laptop to down load pictures.

$450 + 50 for a SM adaptor. Much cheaper than a laptop or buying loads of SM cards.

Will27667 · Aug 14, 2001

I now always use the HQ setting on my C-2020, which results in files of about 400k for a 1600x1200 jpeg. I'm not sure, but I believe the compression is somewhere in the range of 8:1 or 9:1. I've done a lot of comparison between SHQ (something like 2.7:1) and HQ, and for all practical purposes, there is very little difference between them for prints of 5x7 or less.

Yes, there is SOME difference in quality technically, but realistically, I truly doubt many people would see it. Therefore I leave my camera set for HQ, and it gives me loads of pictures for my two 64meg memory cards (about 160 pictures per card). Use HQ and take more pictures!

MrPhoto · Aug 14, 2001

I agree Rob and do the same.

Another poster here made the suggestion to take the HQ compressed photograph and open it in Photoshop and then save it as a .psd file. That way, you can preserve what you already have without further losses. You can just pick the shots you like best to do that with. This makes a lot of sense to me.

Bill

Rob said:
I now always use the HQ setting on my C-2020, which results in
files of about 400k for a 1600x1200 jpeg. I'm not sure, but I
believe the compression is somewhere in the range of 8:1 or 9:1.
I've done a lot of comparison between SHQ (something like 2.7:1)
and HQ, and for all practical purposes, there is very little
difference between them for prints of 5x7 or less.

Yes, there is SOME difference in quality technically, but
realistically, I truly doubt many people would see it. Therefore I
leave my camera set for HQ, and it gives me loads of pictures for
my two 64meg memory cards (about 160 pictures per card). Use HQ
and take more pictures!

NCL · Aug 14, 2001

This is true, but if you don't have PhotoShop, you could simply save the image as a bit map ( .bmp), which any windows image editor will do, even the camedia software will save as windows bit map or even TIFF. You will not lose any further image data no matter how many times you save it.

I find that HQ is good most of the time, but when there is lots of busy detail SHQ is better. Last fall I took many pictures of fall leaves in HQ mode. After closer inspection I can see how the compression effects detail. This Fall I will certainly use SHQ for the fall folliage. now with a couple 64Mb cards I stick to SHQ most of the time anyway, because why not get the most out of your pictures if you have the memory space.

Bill said:
Another poster here made the suggestion to take the HQ compressed
photograph and open it in Photoshop and then save it as a .psd
file. That way, you can preserve what you already have without
further losses. You can just pick the shots you like best to do
that with. This makes a lot of sense to me.

Bill

Rob said:

I now always use the HQ setting on my C-2020, which results in
files of about 400k for a 1600x1200 jpeg. I'm not sure, but I
believe the compression is somewhere in the range of 8:1 or 9:1.
I've done a lot of comparison between SHQ (something like 2.7:1)
and HQ, and for all practical purposes, there is very little
difference between them for prints of 5x7 or less.

Yes, there is SOME difference in quality technically, but
realistically, I truly doubt many people would see it. Therefore I
leave my camera set for HQ, and it gives me loads of pictures for
my two 64meg memory cards (about 160 pictures per card). Use HQ
and take more pictures!

Click to expand...

Search

HQ vs SHQ Compression

dick52717

Veteran Member

kbelloise42680

Leading Member

Pius

Well-known member

Pius

Well-known member

dick52717

Veteran Member

s k u l p t

Veteran Member

Juli Valley

Veteran Member

Will27667

Well-known member

MrPhoto

Veteran Member

NCL

Member

Keyboard shortcuts