Chaman
Well-known member
Manual indicates that you should be able to take 7 pictures. I just took 11 pictures before I ran out of space. Sizes ranged from 1,172KB to 1,331KB
--
Chaman
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dimage F100 2272x1704 average file size?
- Thread starter Stardust
- Start date
--
Chaman
I see Phil's F100 review is now on-line.My camera usually generate about 1.3Mb per pictures under FINE mode
with resolution 2272 x 1704. Shouldn't the fine mode pics be
around 2Mb or even bigger? Any chances my F100 is shooting in
standard mode (which 99% generate 700-800kb files) instead of FINE
mode?
And his image sizes are 1.3mb too.
It is interesting to compare the file sizes of the cameras he compares the F100 to.
The Canon S40 is also 1.3mb in fine mode, but also has a superfine mode with 2.2mb images
The slightly smaller 2240x1680 images of the Pentax were 1.2mb, but again had an even finer mode with 1.6mb images
Finally, the Sony PC9 produced 1.6mb in its top fine mode, and 950k in standard - so either side of the F100.
So it looks like Minolta is applying greater compression levels compared to the others at there top jpeg setting.
I wonder if this is part of the reason for soft images that Phil reports?
--
Regards
Lawrence
stevez32
Forum Enthusiast
The compression that the F100 uses seems to be very effective without loosing much detail because compared to the TIFF file the details are similar.
Minolta F100 Gallery: [ http://www.backroadsracing.com/minolta/]
Nikon N80 Gallery: [ http://www.backroadsracing.com/images/n80_scans/]
--I had tried out Konica KD-300z before with 3 megapixal resolution
in fine mode produces 2mb+ file size. The F100 must have used a
much compressed jpeg format.
Stardust
Interesting, all my fine mode 2272x1704 images seem to be betweenWith my F100 in the fine mode, file sizes range from 1.5 to 2 MB
depending on picture complexity.
1.2 and 1.5mb.
I haven't got one past 1.5mb either.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I can't see that much
difference between a fine and a medium shot.
Perhaps we should also ask what is the typicall file size you get
on medium setting? Mine are all in the 700-950kb range
I have taken the same shot on fine and medium. Relatively complex
scene, flowers and bushes.
File sizes were 1.3mb, 847kb respectively
Hmm. I need to go do some more test shots.
--
Regards
Lawrence
Minolta F100 Gallery: [ http://www.backroadsracing.com/minolta/]
Nikon N80 Gallery: [ http://www.backroadsracing.com/images/n80_scans/]
Beeni
Active member
Wouldn't greater compression lead to more artifacts as opposed to softer images? I.e., jaggies and such. Or is softness also a compression artifact?I wonder if this is part of the reason for soft images that Phil
reports?
--
Regards
Lawrence
--
Beeni
Lee Eiseman
Member
:
Lee
To me it seems like Minolta's conservative sharpening algorithym is responsible for the smaller file sizes. As soon as one sharpens the images in PhotoShop and re-saves at a high jpg, the images are over 2MB...Minolta's strategy must be aimed at reducing noise and shortening write times. I don't mind sharpening in post processing at all.Wouldn't greater compression lead to more artifacts as opposed toI wonder if this is part of the reason for soft images that Phil
reports?
softer images? I.e., jaggies and such. Or is softness also a
compression artifact?
Lee
But isn't it saving at a very good quality can get even a bigger jpg file size but that photo is still in less quality as the original one?
Stardust
Stardust
To me it seems like Minolta's conservative sharpening algorithym isWouldn't greater compression lead to more artifacts as opposed toI wonder if this is part of the reason for soft images that Phil
reports?
softer images? I.e., jaggies and such. Or is softness also a
compression artifact?
responsible for the smaller file sizes. As soon as one sharpens the
images in PhotoShop and re-saves at a high jpg, the images are over
2MB...Minolta's strategy must be aimed at reducing noise and
shortening write times. I don't mind sharpening in post processing
at all.
Lee
Lee Eiseman
Member
The pictures that are properly sharpened in post proscessing certainly look sharper. I am assuming that 4 mega pixel cameras which generate larger file sizes do so because they apply sharpening in the camera. Therefore, they really don't capture any more useful information than the cameras which leave the sharpening to the user.But isn't it saving at a very good quality can get even a bigger
jpg file size but that photo is still in less quality as the
original one?
Stardust
Lee
What sharpening 'strategy' do you use?The pictures that are properly sharpened in post proscessing
certainly look sharper. I am assuming that 4 mega pixel cameras
which generate larger file sizes do so because they apply
sharpening in the camera. Therefore, they really don't capture any
more useful information than the cameras which leave the sharpening
to the user.
Any filter/setting you apply consistently, or do you take each image as it comes?
What about sharpening in divo vs photoshop?
--
Regards
Lawrence
Lee Eiseman
Member
My practice in Photoshop Elements is almost invariably to click Sharpen once for almost every photo. If the shot is low contrast and low noise, I might click sharpen a second time. The last time I used the Unsharp Mask, it was set at Amount- 120%, radius- 1.5, threshold- 11.What sharpening 'strategy' do you use?
Any filter/setting you apply consistently, or do you take each
image as it comes?
What about sharpening in divo vs photoshop?
--
Regards
Lawrence
By the way, because I find the images out of the F100 need a bit more snap, I usually have great success using the Enhance/ Auto Levels control in Photoshop. If the color balance is worsened by that command, I then use Auto Contrast instead.
I havent installed Divo.
I'm very pleased with the results as printed on archival matte paper with an Epson C-80
Here's another intersting question. When first saving the photos as jpg (by the digicam), the bigger the file size the better. So if there are two digicam and one saves 2.0mb photos and the other saves 1.3mb photos, wouldn't the 2.0mb one be better? I'm assuming everything else is the same (which is not possible as different digicam uses different lens, mechanism...etc). That 0.7mb data can hold a lot of detais probably?
I guess digicam manufacturers have to find a way to optimize the file size vs jpg quality compression. Do you guys think Minolta should increase the FINE mode file size for the F100? Can this be done thru firmware upgrade?
Stardust
I guess digicam manufacturers have to find a way to optimize the file size vs jpg quality compression. Do you guys think Minolta should increase the FINE mode file size for the F100? Can this be done thru firmware upgrade?
Stardust
I see Phil's F100 review is now on-line.My camera usually generate about 1.3Mb per pictures under FINE mode
with resolution 2272 x 1704. Shouldn't the fine mode pics be
around 2Mb or even bigger? Any chances my F100 is shooting in
standard mode (which 99% generate 700-800kb files) instead of FINE
mode?
And his image sizes are 1.3mb too.
It is interesting to compare the file sizes of the cameras he
compares the F100 to.
The Canon S40 is also 1.3mb in fine mode, but also has a superfine
mode with 2.2mb images
The slightly smaller 2240x1680 images of the Pentax were 1.2mb, but
again had an even finer mode with 1.6mb images
Finally, the Sony PC9 produced 1.6mb in its top fine mode, and 950k
in standard - so either side of the F100.
So it looks like Minolta is applying greater compression levels
compared to the others at there top jpeg setting.
I wonder if this is part of the reason for soft images that Phil
reports?
--
Regards
Lawrence
Lee Eiseman
Member
So
If the 2 MB files adds information derived from the sharpening process rather than from the original data, then the resultant file contains no more useful information then the 1.3MB file which could be sharpened in post processing.if there are two digicam and one saves 2.0mb photos and the other
saves 1.3mb photos, wouldn't the 2.0mb one be better?
Brian Oliver
Forum Enthusiast
I don't think sharpening has anything to do with it. I think Minolta simply increased the compression to get more shots on the card and to reduce storage times. Based on this, I'd take the s404 over the F100. This is also supported by Phil's conclusion of "recommended" for the F100 versus "highly recommended" for the s404.If the 2 MB files adds information derived from the sharpeningif there are two digicam and one saves 2.0mb photos and the other
saves 1.3mb photos, wouldn't the 2.0mb one be better?
process rather than from the original data, then the resultant file
contains no more useful information then the 1.3MB file which could
be sharpened in post processing.
--
Brian
I'd like to see a raw mode added. That would allow us to get the max quality from the shot. The jpeg compression is a little high. But I agree with the other opinions, I think the canon is sharpening the image then must produce larger files.
I'm not sure on reading so much into the recomended versus highly recomeded. It may have more to do with phil getting his hands on a canon s45, and raising his standards.
I'm not sure on reading so much into the recomended versus highly recomeded. It may have more to do with phil getting his hands on a canon s45, and raising his standards.
I don't think sharpening has anything to do with it. I thinkIf the 2 MB files adds information derived from the sharpeningif there are two digicam and one saves 2.0mb photos and the other
saves 1.3mb photos, wouldn't the 2.0mb one be better?
process rather than from the original data, then the resultant file
contains no more useful information then the 1.3MB file which could
be sharpened in post processing.
Minolta simply increased the compression to get more shots on the
card and to reduce storage times. Based on this, I'd take the s404
over the F100. This is also supported by Phil's conclusion of
"recommended" for the F100 versus "highly recommended" for the s404.
--
Brian
I dont think you can compare two recommendations that are so far apart in time.I don't think sharpening has anything to do with it. I think
Minolta simply increased the compression to get more shots on the
card and to reduce storage times. Based on this, I'd take the s404
over the F100. This is also supported by Phil's conclusion of
"recommended" for the F100 versus "highly recommended" for the s404.
A 1mp camera would have been highly recommended once.
Interestingly though, all the other 4mp cameras that Phil references in the review have a high quality setting that produces larger images than the F100. But Phil doesnt rate them any higher
--
Regards
Lawrence
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.