SHQ vs HQ modes

Hi,

Could someone please explain to me what is the difference between the HQ and SHQ modes, becides the fact that HQ uses higher compression.

I guess what I'm looking for is the idea of when I should use one or the other mode. For example, if I decide to print the photo bigger then 4X6

should I be using SHQ or is it after 8X10? How big is the difference in quality? When should I use TIFF, considering that I can store only 10 images on 128mb SM and that camera takes forever to record the image or to play it back?

I appreciate your response(s)!

Thank you,

Gene

(Oly C-4000Z, 2x MegaPlus)

Gene Yuger said:

Hi,

Could someone please explain to me what is the difference between
the HQ and SHQ modes, becides the fact that HQ uses higher
compression.
I guess what I'm looking for is the idea of when I should use one
or the other mode. For example, if I decide to print the photo
bigger then 4X6
should I be using SHQ or is it after 8X10? How big is the
difference in quality? When should I use TIFF, considering that I
can store only 10 images on 128mb SM and that camera takes forever
to record the image or to play it back?

I appreciate your response(s)!

Thank you,

Gene

(Oly C-4000Z, 2x MegaPlus)

Click to expand...

This subject has been rehashed many times here. If you do a search on this subject you will find that 90% of the members use SHQ.
--
James A
Uzi 21oo
B-3o0 What ever trips your trigger!

Sorry, I will try searching better.

Gene

James A said:

Gene Yuger said:

Hi,

Could someone please explain to me what is the difference between
the HQ and SHQ modes, becides the fact that HQ uses higher
compression.
I guess what I'm looking for is the idea of when I should use one
or the other mode. For example, if I decide to print the photo
bigger then 4X6
should I be using SHQ or is it after 8X10? How big is the
difference in quality? When should I use TIFF, considering that I
can store only 10 images on 128mb SM and that camera takes forever
to record the image or to play it back?

I appreciate your response(s)!

Thank you,

Gene

(Oly C-4000Z, 2x MegaPlus)

Click to expand...

This subject has been rehashed many times here. If you do a search
on this subject you will find that 90% of the members use SHQ.
--
James A
Uzi 21oo
B-3o0 What ever trips your trigger!

Click to expand...

--
Thank you,

Gene

Although it has been discussed many times as others have said....

The only difference is the compression. Yes, most people use SHQ because it offeres a good balance between compression, quantity, and quality.

I would recommend just leaving it set to SHQ. You can get good prints with HQ but SHQ gives you more flexibility.

I personally never use TIFF because the added benefits are so slight it's not worth loosing camera features and speed for the sake of a small increase in quality when printing large.

Gene Yuger said:

Hi,

Could someone please explain to me what is the difference between
the HQ and SHQ modes, becides the fact that HQ uses higher
compression.
I guess what I'm looking for is the idea of when I should use one
or the other mode. For example, if I decide to print the photo
bigger then 4X6
should I be using SHQ or is it after 8X10? How big is the
difference in quality? When should I use TIFF, considering that I
can store only 10 images on 128mb SM and that camera takes forever
to record the image or to play it back?

I appreciate your response(s)!

Thank you,

Gene

Click to expand...

IRC said:

The only difference is the compression. Yes, most people use SHQ
because it offeres a good balance between compression, quantity,
and quality.

I would recommend just leaving it set to SHQ. You can get good
prints with HQ but SHQ gives you more flexibility.

I personally never use TIFF because the added benefits are so
slight it's not worth loosing camera features and speed for the
sake of a small increase in quality when printing large.

Gene Yuger said:

Hi,

Could someone please explain to me what is the difference between
the HQ and SHQ modes, becides the fact that HQ uses higher
compression.
I guess what I'm looking for is the idea of when I should use one
or the other mode. For example, if I decide to print the photo
bigger then 4X6
should I be using SHQ or is it after 8X10? How big is the
difference in quality? When should I use TIFF, considering that I
can store only 10 images on 128mb SM and that camera takes forever
to record the image or to play it back?

I appreciate your response(s)!

Thank you,

Gene

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I did a test on this a few weeks ago. My c730 has 3.2mp and shoots SHQ at 2048x1536. It also can shoot HQ at the same resolution. Of course, the SHQ mode uses much more storage space. I did test shots in both modes and then printed 8x10s. I saw no difference. So what do I do. I shoot normally at HQ, but switch to SHQ for a good deal of my shooting, particularly if the subject might be something I'd want to enlarge and or crop. So, shoot at SHQ or HQ, the latter particularly if you might be running out of room on your card. Hey, you're not going to notice any difference anyway if you're not going to to super enlargements.
--
Oly c730 Fl-40 Flash
Raynox 1800 (1.8) and 5000(.5)
Owner/Moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus-C730/

If you don't post-process much, and never plan to, then HQ can give you some significant space savings.

Other than that, SHQ images hold up much better when tweaked in photo editors as they have fewer JPG artifacts. Take two shots of the same subject, one in HQ, one in SHQ. Then zoom in on each 200-300%. In the HQ image you should be able to see groups of pixels forming a pattern of squares that make up the overall image like a mosaic. That's the tell-tale sign of JPG. This effect should be much less apparent in the SHQ image. Straight out of the camera and straight to the printer, this may not be that big a deal, but if you have to enlarge, or sharpen, or manipulate the image in any way, this detail loss becomes a factor.

HQ will usually get you more sequential shots in a drive-mode burst as each frame takes up less space in the camera's buffer. For shooting certain types of action, the quality loss may be an acceptable trade-off. A captured HQ image is always better than an SHQ one missed due to waiting for a full buffer to be written to the memory card.

Gene Yuger said:

Hi,

Could someone please explain to me what is the difference between
the HQ and SHQ modes, becides the fact that HQ uses higher
compression.
I guess what I'm looking for is the idea of when I should use one
or the other mode. For example, if I decide to print the photo
bigger then 4X6
should I be using SHQ or is it after 8X10? How big is the
difference in quality? When should I use TIFF, considering that I
can store only 10 images on 128mb SM and that camera takes forever
to record the image or to play it back?

I appreciate your response(s)!

Thank you,

Gene

(Oly C-4000Z, 2x MegaPlus)

Click to expand...

HQ also isn't such a bad trade-off if say, you're down to your last 10 shots at SHQ and have lots more you'd like to take, but you have no more cards, and no means to free up more space, or otherwise off-load your images.
(This happened to me once).

Again, an image captured at less than optimal quality is still better than no shot at all.

I agree with the previous writer. I usually shoot in HQ mode and the results have been quite satisfactory. I just posted on another thread that I had 11 x 14 prints made from my C-3020 which had been shot in HQ mode and I was happy with the results. As someone else said, it depends so much on how much post processing you do and at what resolution you save the jpg.

I too do not see that much difference between SHQ and HQ. Most of my pictures are to be viewed on the computer or made into 4 x 6 prints, so you can be live with HQ.

Martin
--
http://www.pbase.com/mrd pbase supporter
C-3020 Tiffen MegaPlus 2X

Jimm said:

I did a test on this a few weeks ago. My c730 has 3.2mp and shoots
SHQ at 2048x1536. It also can shoot HQ at the same resolution. Of
course, the SHQ mode uses much more storage space. I did test
shots in both modes and then printed 8x10s. I saw no difference.

Click to expand...

There could be a couple of reasons for this -

1. You need glasses. ;-) Seriously, though, some people just don't look at the "right things" to enable them to see the differences.

2. You have a printer that doesn't take advantage of the extra pixel capacity. Many, many home printers max out on resoultion (dpi) before the owner's camera does, especially given today's high-MP cameras. If your printer, for example, is resolving 8x10's at 160 dpi, and your camera delivers 200 dpi at HQ and 300 dpi at SHQ (just to pick some numbers), you ain't gonna see any difference - because the print is essentially the same ... it can do 160 and no more, regardless of the image it's being asked to print.

3. You haven't processed the images right in your editor. You probably know, but many people don't, that simple things like a "Save As" in most image editors compresses the image, degrading it. So you might have a higher-quality SHQ image, then tweak the contrast or brightness to get ready for printing, do a Save As and voila! the image has jpeg compression applied. Do this more than once and the image really goes downhill. At some point early in this process, it has become no better than the HQ image! Print them both and the HQ image might even look better!

4. You might even be resizing the image. Probably not, but I've known some people to actually resize an image prior to printing (you know, to make it easier to view on-screen, or to make it smaller and easier to handle, etc.). Then they complain it doesn't print worth a darn. Duh?

There are even more reasons for crummy prints, but these are a few of the most common.

Jimm said:

So what do I do. I shoot normally at HQ, but switch to SHQ for a
good deal of my shooting, particularly if the subject might be
something I'd want to enlarge and or crop. So, shoot at SHQ or HQ,
the latter particularly if you might be running out of room on your
card. Hey, you're not going to notice any difference anyway if
you're not going to to super enlargements.
--

Click to expand...

This is probably good advice ... if you always know in advance what you might later want to enlarge, crop or print large. But I don't always know that in advance. So I recommend always shooting in SHQ, unless you are out of memory cards and must get some more shots in. Or maybe if ALL your work is online stuff. Hey, cards are cheap these days, and they're small and portable, so I say stock up and shoot SHQ!

Mike
--
C-2100UZ (2!)

Totally agree. I have printed to 8 X 10 from my C730 and the results were outstanding in HQ mode.

Cheers,

Tim

Martin Davis said:

I agree with the previous writer. I usually shoot in HQ mode and
the results have been quite satisfactory. I just posted on another
thread that I had 11 x 14 prints made from my C-3020 which had been
shot in HQ mode and I was happy with the results. As someone else
said, it depends so much on how much post processing you do and at
what resolution you save the jpg.

I too do not see that much difference between SHQ and HQ. Most of
my pictures are to be viewed on the computer or made into 4 x 6
prints, so you can be live with HQ.

Martin
--
http://www.pbase.com/mrd pbase supporter
C-3020 Tiffen MegaPlus 2X

Click to expand...

Actually I think you missed my point....

I'm an advocate of SHQ all the time, but I acknowledge that there are some special conditions where HQ is an acceptable trade-off.

I believe the best possible output is achieved by hand editing/balancing in an editor. A single shot of 500/0.2/0 USM alone can do wonders. But if you're all that worried about space (when a 128MB SM card is $45) then HQ isn't too bad.

tim_l said:

Cheers,

Tim

Martin Davis said:

I agree with the previous writer. I usually shoot in HQ mode and
the results have been quite satisfactory. I just posted on another
thread that I had 11 x 14 prints made from my C-3020 which had been
shot in HQ mode and I was happy with the results. As someone else
said, it depends so much on how much post processing you do and at
what resolution you save the jpg.

I too do not see that much difference between SHQ and HQ. Most of
my pictures are to be viewed on the computer or made into 4 x 6
prints, so you can be live with HQ.

Martin
--
http://www.pbase.com/mrd pbase supporter
C-3020 Tiffen MegaPlus 2X

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yxix said:

This is probably good advice ... if you always know in advance what
you might later want to enlarge, crop or print large. But I don't
always know that in advance. So I recommend always shooting in SHQ,
unless you are out of memory cards and must get some more shots in.
Or maybe if ALL your work is online stuff. Hey, cards are cheap
these days, and they're small and portable, so I say stock up and
shoot SHQ!

Click to expand...

Amen.

Yxix said:

2. You have a printer that doesn't take advantage of the extra
pixel capacity. Many, many home printers max out on resoultion
(dpi) before the owner's camera does, especially given today's
high-MP cameras. If your printer, for example, is resolving 8x10's
at 160 dpi, and your camera delivers 200 dpi at HQ and 300 dpi at
SHQ (just to pick some numbers), you ain't gonna see any difference

• because the print is essentially the same ... it can do 160 and

no more, regardless of the image it's being asked to print.

Click to expand...

You're mixing ideas/concepts. There is no difference in resolution between an HQ and SHQ pic, only a difference in compression and hence quality. If you print a pic to 8x10, the dpi will be exactly the same for both HQ and SHQ. Same amount of pixels, different file sizes. The loss in quality is due to loss of data/details from the compression algorithm and inability to restore those details when uncompressing the file. Less compression equals less data loss, which is the main reason for usng SHQ.

Pixelizer said:

Mike
--
C-2100UZ (2!)

Click to expand...

Since the 'save as' results in degrading an image. What if you save your edited/enhanced shots first as a TIFF? I saw that suggested by Sandman some time ago. Won't that keep from degrading it? And then, if you want a resized image, can't you now go back and resize the TIFF image and resave as a Jpg?

Thanks.....(mutter, mutter, mutter...so MUCH to learn...sigh)
--
Lucy
Olympus C3-2-Z
pbase supporter http://www.pbase.com/lucy

You are right Lucy, but what Inigo is saying is that one starts off with a degraded image (less picture information) out of the camera when shooting in HQ mode vs. SHQ.

Personally, I've been using HQ and am happy with it. I prefer it to SHQ because of the increased storage and camera performance. It takes less time to write and view in the HQ mode vs. SHQ. I do all my post processing in PhotoShop in native format. This preserves all of the HQ information. When the need comes to do a "Save As" to jpg, I select the highest quality setting (12) to preserve as much information as possible. This works for me.

Cheers,

Doug Burgess in Fremont, CA
2100, FL-40, B-300
Moose Filter, Hoya Intensifier, Hoya HMC (81A), all 55mm
pBase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/balldee
http://www1.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=24075
http://doug3.home.attbi.com/slideshow2.htm

Lucy said:

Since the 'save as' results in degrading an image. What if you
save your edited/enhanced shots first as a TIFF? I saw that
suggested by Sandman some time ago. Won't that keep from degrading
it? And then, if you want a resized image, can't you now go back
and resize the TIFF image and resave as a Jpg?

Thanks.....(mutter, mutter, mutter...so MUCH to learn...sigh)
--
Lucy
Olympus C3-2-Z
pbase supporter http://www.pbase.com/lucy

Click to expand...

I understand a bit more now....thanks!
Lucy
Olympus C3-2-Z
pbase supporter http://www.pbase.com/lucy

Ted said:

Yxix said:

2. You have a printer that doesn't take advantage of the extra
pixel capacity. Many, many home printers max out on resoultion
(dpi) before the owner's camera does, especially given today's
high-MP cameras. If your printer, for example, is resolving 8x10's
at 160 dpi, and your camera delivers 200 dpi at HQ and 300 dpi at
SHQ (just to pick some numbers), you ain't gonna see any difference

• because the print is essentially the same ... it can do 160 and

no more, regardless of the image it's being asked to print.

Click to expand...

You're mixing ideas/concepts. There is no difference in resolution
between an HQ and SHQ pic, only a difference in compression and
hence quality. If you print a pic to 8x10, the dpi will be exactly
the same for both HQ and SHQ. Same amount of pixels, different
file sizes. The loss in quality is due to loss of data/details from
the compression algorithm and inability to restore those details
when uncompressing the file. Less compression equals less data
loss, which is the main reason for usng SHQ.

Click to expand...

I was trying to get across a concept using the "broader" definition of resolution. In digital terms, resolution is basically just size ... width x length in pixels. In the broader sense, resolution is the perception of sharpness, clarity and detail.

But there's also a difference in pixels and dpi, and they don't translate one-for-one in the printing process. I have the impression that an SHQ image, loaded as it is with more image data, may lay down more dots from an inkjet printer than an otherwise identical HQ image carrying less data. That's certainly what HP, Kodak, Epson and others lead us to believe with their high-tech printing algo's.

I think this can be demonstrated by printing an 8x10 of an excellent, high-res image, then degrading that same image significantly in your editor and printing it again. There will not only be chunky jpeg artifacts visible, but also some noticeable areas of missing "dots" and/or "merged dots", representing areas where the printer couldn't "resolve" any detail from the reduced image data, and simply glommed together some color - or lack thereof. That's the basis for my comment about the camera delivering dpi different from the printer's.

Mike
--
C-2100UZ (2!)

Lucy said:

Since the 'save as' results in degrading an image. What if you
save your edited/enhanced shots first as a TIFF? I saw that
suggested by Sandman some time ago. Won't that keep from degrading
it? And then, if you want a resized image, can't you now go back
and resize the TIFF image and resave as a Jpg?

Thanks.....(mutter, mutter, mutter...so MUCH to learn...sigh)
--

Click to expand...

What is the proper or ideal way to save an image without degrading it? If I make some changes (maybe something simple like a resize), what is the best way to do a "save as" with the least degradation?

so MUCH to learn....

YMark said:

What is the proper or ideal way to save an image without degrading
it? If I make some changes (maybe something simple like a resize),
what is the best way to do a "save as" with the least degradation?

Click to expand...

Some people first convert their photos to a lossless format like .bmp (Windows Bitmap), then do any image manipulation, then do a final save as a jpeg (using the lowest compression that will yield the filesize/quality they want or need).

These people save the original .bmp unchanged in their archives for any later use. With .bmp, .tif, .raw, etc., the image is not compressed or degraded (beyond what the image editor does to it in making changes) and you are about as safe as you're going to get. The filesizes, however, are huge and you will use up lots of hard drive, so you might want to consider storing images on CD's or DVD's.

Mike
--
C-2100UZ (2!)

I never understood why people dl their images and then convert instantly to a different format. Doesn't make sense to me. I can see dl'ing your images and then saving off different edited versions but it's pointless to convert the original because you don't gain anything out of it.

However once you've edited the image it makes sense to not compress it again. Even with huge file sizes hard drives are really cheap so adding another one or two is a good way to go. However, it's best to keep the photos on a drive separate from your OS. Usually when a computer crashes or a hard drive fails the data is lost from the drive with the OS not one of the secondary drives. Having this extra space makes burning easier too because you can wait and fill up a CD of similar shots instead of disc after disc of random ones.

Yxix said:

YMark said:

What is the proper or ideal way to save an image without degrading
it? If I make some changes (maybe something simple like a resize),
what is the best way to do a "save as" with the least degradation?

Click to expand...

Some people first convert their photos to a lossless format like
.bmp (Windows Bitmap), then do any image manipulation, then do a
final save as a jpeg (using the lowest compression that will yield
the filesize/quality they want or need).

These people save the original .bmp unchanged in their archives for
any later use. With .bmp, .tif, .raw, etc., the image is not
compressed or degraded (beyond what the image editor does to it in
making changes) and you are about as safe as you're going to get.
The filesizes, however, are huge and you will use up lots of hard
drive, so you might want to consider storing images on CD's or
DVD's.

Mike
--
C-2100UZ (2!)

Click to expand...