What compression level is acceptable for 2020z pri

I just purchased a 2020z and have been getting about 22-23 pictures per 32 meg smartmedia card. I know I can change the compression level to fit more pictures per card, but am not sure if this would be noticable on the printouts.

I typically take pictures of family for printing at 4x6 with an occasional 5x7 thrown in.

Will the compression difference be noticable on a 4x6 or 5x7 print???

I have the same question. I have looked at pictures taken at both compressions and magnified on the computer screen. I can't tell any difference. I have not printed the pics to see if that makes a difference. Has anyone done this? It seems that the 32 Meg card will hold about 66 shots at the HQ compression.

Ed

Dar said:

I just purchased a 2020z and have been getting about 22-23 pictures per
32 meg smartmedia card. I know I can change the compression level to fit
more pictures per card, but am not sure if this would be noticable on the
printouts.

I typically take pictures of family for printing at 4x6 with an
occasional 5x7 thrown in.

Will the compression difference be noticable on a 4x6 or 5x7 print???

Click to expand...

Ed Kirstein said:

I have the same question. I have looked at pictures taken at both
compressions and magnified on the computer screen. I can't tell any
difference. I have not printed the pics to see if that makes a
difference. Has anyone done this? It seems that the 32 Meg card will
hold about 66 shots at the HQ compression.

Click to expand...

I generally use HQ compression. I have seen no ill effects on 5x7 printouts (haven't done 8x10 yet). I think the 8x10 should come out ok when you resize 1600x1200 to 800x600 (8x10) and resample to 150 ppi. This isn't bad to do because you are keeping the same amount of pixels in the image (no need to really resample and interpolate).

Johnny

I'd like to hear also,

I have printed a lot of 8 by 10 pictures using TIFF and SHQ Jpeg on my HP Photosmart printer with absolutely stunning results, but I have not tried printing HQ photos at 8 by 10. I have had such satisfactory result with the SHQ mode. The only pictures that I have printed at 8 by 10 are purposeful portraits. I have printed 5 by 7's from the HQ mode and they look great. I think I will run an experiment later today. I have hesitated because of the ink/paper cost and didn't want to waste them. But, I am sure that one of these days soon, I am going to capture something in HQ mode that the family is going to want blown up. Guess I might as well verify that I can get an 8 by 10 now.

Also note that I am using an HP photosmart, it is a dye-sublim. I can't tell you the results on a dot matrix (bubblejet) printer.

I am telling you, if you want stunning output, a dedicated photo printer is worth it.

I couldn't believe it when the PH Photosmart was available for 150.00 back in November. I got mine over the net, but even local Staples had it for 150 bucks. I don't think you can get it anymore. I bought mine when I didn't even own a camera yet, and I am so glad I did. It does have a very large footprint though. Due, mostly, to the fact that the paper never bends. I feeds from below and behind the printhead.

Jim

8x10s come out very nice in HQ mode. There's not that much difference to warrant the extra space of SHQ in my opinion.

Typically, my prints are made using a Kodak 8670 dye sub printer. If you look carefully at the prints, you can see some of the digital noise in shadow areas but you have to look for it. It doesn't pop out at you. I've shown 8x10s to pro portrait photographers who didn't realize they were looking at prints from digital.

Jaz

Jack A. Zucker said:

8x10s come out very nice in HQ mode. There's not that much difference to
warrant the extra space of SHQ in my opinion.

Typically, my prints are made using a Kodak 8670 dye sub printer. If you
look carefully at the prints, you can see some of the digital noise in
shadow areas but you have to look for it. It doesn't pop out at you. I've
shown 8x10s to pro portrait photographers who didn't realize they were
looking at prints from digital.

Jaz

Click to expand...

Based on this response from Jaz, who knows what he is talking about, I would feel comfortable taking HQ pictures for general purpose photography knowing that I could blow up a favorite picture if needed; but whenever I am taking portrait grade pictures, I will continue to use SHQ. In those circumstances I would rather take the time to but the card in a reader and download to my pc, or laptop, because more than likely I am not in a mobile state at that time. That's just the way I'd do it.

Jim

I had the same question and performed the same experiment
that was earlier mentioned: examined HQ and SHQ on screen.
I could scarcely tell the difference. Thefore I have decided to
use HQ.

doug

Johnny said:

Ed Kirstein said:

I have the same question. I have looked at pictures taken at both
compressions and magnified on the computer screen. I can't tell any
difference. I have not printed the pics to see if that makes a
difference. Has anyone done this? It seems that the 32 Meg card will
hold about 66 shots at the HQ compression.

Click to expand...

I generally use HQ compression. I have seen no ill effects on 5x7
printouts (haven't done 8x10 yet). I think the 8x10 should come out ok
when you resize 1600x1200 to 800x600 (8x10) and resample to 150 ppi.
This isn't bad to do because you are keeping the same amount of pixels in
the image (no need to really resample and interpolate).

Johnny

Click to expand...

While I agree the difference is difficult to detect, it is there.

Therefore, If I am at home, or taking pictures I may want to submit to competitions, or other 'quality sensitive' uses, I will use shq

Otherwise (and for all 'snapshot' situations) I use HQ

doug said:

doug

Johnny said:

Ed Kirstein said:

I have the same question. I have looked at pictures taken at both
compressions and magnified on the computer screen. I can't tell any
difference. I have not printed the pics to see if that makes a
difference. Has anyone done this? It seems that the 32 Meg card will
hold about 66 shots at the HQ compression.

Click to expand...

I generally use HQ compression. I have seen no ill effects on 5x7
printouts (haven't done 8x10 yet). I think the 8x10 should come out ok
when you resize 1600x1200 to 800x600 (8x10) and resample to 150 ppi.
This isn't bad to do because you are keeping the same amount of pixels in
the image (no need to really resample and interpolate).

Johnny

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jim said:

am taking portrait grade pictures, I will continue to use SHQ. In those
circumstances I would rather take the time to but the card in a reader
and download to my pc, or laptop, because more than likely I am not in a
mobile state at that time. That's just the way I'd do it.

Click to expand...

Look at the pictures at http://www.geocities.com/jazucker_2000/01-03-00/

You can see the differences in noise between the 3 levels of compression. There's not THAT great a difference!

Jaz

Tony Collins said:

While I agree the difference is difficult to detect, it is there.

Therefore, If I am at home, or taking pictures I may want to submit to
competitions, or other 'quality sensitive' uses, I will use shq

Otherwise (and for all 'snapshot' situations) I use HQ

Click to expand...

I probably will do the same when I get a cardreader that runs under Win2k.

Supposedly Sandisk works but they're out of stock locally and I want to buy it in town in case it doesn't work.

Jaz

Dar said:

I just purchased a 2020z and have been getting about 22-23 pictures per
32 meg smartmedia card. I know I can change the compression level to fit
more pictures per card, but am not sure if this would be noticable on the
printouts.

I typically take pictures of family for printing at 4x6 with an
occasional 5x7 thrown in.

Will the compression difference be noticable on a 4x6 or 5x7 print???

Click to expand...

For you more experienced users. If I understand correctly, every time you make a change to a JPEG photograph (Excluding filters and layer!!), don't you loose information due to recalculation of the jpeg; and if that is true, if you were expecting to do much photo manipulation (again, not with filters or layers), wouldn't it be prudent to start with the most information that you can in the first jpeg?
Thanks,
Jim

jim said:

Dar said:

I just purchased a 2020z and have been getting about 22-23 pictures per
32 meg smartmedia card. I know I can change the compression level to fit
more pictures per card, but am not sure if this would be noticable on the
printouts.

I typically take pictures of family for printing at 4x6 with an
occasional 5x7 thrown in.

Will the compression difference be noticable on a 4x6 or 5x7 print???

Click to expand...

For you more experienced users. If I understand correctly, every time you
make a change to a JPEG photograph (Excluding filters and layer!!), don't
you loose information due to recalculation of the jpeg; and if that is
true, if you were expecting to do much photo manipulation (again, not
with filters or layers), wouldn't it be prudent to start with the most
information that you can in the first jpeg?
Thanks,
Jim

Click to expand...

First jpeg? I only work with the uncompressed file once it is out of the camera. I can't imagine recompressing an important photo. I write directly to the CDRW. I always save the original file and the uncompressed processed file. Cd's are cheap enough. There is no reason to compress unless it is for web use or email.

Rich

Rich Wilson said:

jim said:

Dar said:

I just purchased a 2020z and have been getting about 22-23 pictures per
32 meg smartmedia card. I know I can change the compression level to fit
more pictures per card, but am not sure if this would be noticable on the
printouts.

I typically take pictures of family for printing at 4x6 with an
occasional 5x7 thrown in.

Will the compression difference be noticable on a 4x6 or 5x7 print???

Click to expand...

For you more experienced users. If I understand correctly, every time you
make a change to a JPEG photograph (Excluding filters and layer!!), don't
you loose information due to recalculation of the jpeg; and if that is
true, if you were expecting to do much photo manipulation (again, not
with filters or layers), wouldn't it be prudent to start with the most
information that you can in the first jpeg?
Thanks,
Jim

Click to expand...

First jpeg? I only work with the uncompressed file once it is out of the
camera. I can't imagine recompressing an important photo. I write
directly to the CDRW. I always save the original file and the
uncompressed processed file. Cd's are cheap enough. There is no reason
to compress unless it is for web use or email.

Rich

Click to expand...

Forgive me if I am showing my ingnorance here. Firstly, we are discussing using the jpeg files (not TIFF, which I use also) from the C2020, so the original is a jpeg... which infers that it is compressed.

Secondly, I would never purposely try to compress more. I have a cd writer and plenty of disk space. I also have, and use, a USB card reader. But my understanding is ANY time you modify a jpeg file and save it.... It will automaticlly get recompressed (as a function of the operating system), not something I would want to see happen. This is the piece I am seeking clarification on. I hope I misunderstand the concept.

Thanks,
Jim

Jim H. said:

Forgive me if I am showing my ingnorance here. Firstly, we are discussing
using the jpeg files (not TIFF, which I use also) from the C2020, so the
original is a jpeg... which infers that it is compressed.
Secondly, I would never purposely try to compress more. I have a cd
writer and plenty of disk space. I also have, and use, a USB card reader.
But my understanding is ANY time you modify a jpeg file and save it....
It will automaticlly get recompressed (as a function of the operating
system), not something I would want to see happen. This is the piece I am
seeking clarification on. I hope I misunderstand the concept.

Thanks,
Jim

Click to expand...

Anytime you modify a JPEG and and save it as a JPEG there is compression and some loss in quality, so naturally the original JPEG from the camera has some loss in quality. What I meant was, that if you save it as a BMP of TIFF or other lossless format then there would be no further degradation in image quality and therefore that would be the best way to keep and work on an image in your computer. The key then is to save the file in a lossless format after opening it in you photo editor (PhotoShop etc.). I hope that clarifies things.

Rich

Rich,
I do appreciate your responses, but we are going down different paths.

I often use tiff, I often use filters and layers (which do not detract from the original picture.

The original issues in this thread was. Can you use SHQ jpeg as well as TIFF to create clear 8 by 10's..... The answer is yes, I have done it a lot of times.

Then the question was, can you get great 8 by 10's with HQ mode (even more compression). The response from some of the reliable sources on the forum was that they had done so (I have yet to try printing them on my HP photosmart printer 8 by 10 in HQ mode).

I then, asked, 'If I understand correctly everytime that you edit a jpeg you loose data, if I understand correctly. My point being if you are going to be taking pictures that you know you are going to edit more extensively (without using filters and layers) you should start with SHQ (tiff or jpeg, preferably tiff, but jpeg DOES print out fine when created in this mode). HQ is still 1600 by 1200 but with higher compression. If I am correct in my understanding, I would use HQ for a vacation, say camping trip in the rockies, because I am going to get more pictures per media card. Since I am after memories, BUT I am assuming that I would be able to edit these pictures very little because of this recompression if I had one that I wanted to blow up to 8 by 10, because I assume that I am on the edge of being able to print them at this size anyway. I am trying to find out if this logic is correct....or.... if the recompression is so minimal, that I wouldn't notice this loss if printed at 8 by 10 (Then I would drop to 5 by 7).

Again, I do appreciate your response to my question,
Jim

jim said:

If I am correct in my understanding, I would use HQ for a vacation, say
camping trip in the rockies, because I am going to get more pictures per
media card. Since I am after memories, BUT I am assuming that I would be
able to edit these pictures very little because of this recompression

Click to expand...

Jim,

I think what you may be missing is that even if an image is compressed by the camera into a JPEG, you can save it in a lossless format after doing any editing to avoid further degradation. JPEG is simply one of many formats, not all of which are lossy, in which you can save a photo.

Put in a sequence:

1. Take your vacation pictures in HQ mode. HQ images are still very, very good.

2. Load the images into Photoshop or the like and modify at will.

3. Save-As filename.psd or .tif or another of the lossless formats, probably to a different directory (I have \Photos and a \Retouched Photos directory trees). Nothing says you have to save into the same file.

4. Keep the original images just as loaded from the camera without modification.

By the way, the operating system has little to do with the JPEG compression. The applications that can write JPEGs each have their own compression algorithms, and not all are created equal. Worse yet, many have settings you can tweak!

Noel

Noel Carboni said:

jim said:

If I am correct in my understanding, I would use HQ for a vacation, say
camping trip in the rockies, because I am going to get more pictures per
media card. Since I am after memories, BUT I am assuming that I would be
able to edit these pictures very little because of this recompression

Click to expand...

Jim,

I think what you may be missing is that even if an image is compressed by
the camera into a JPEG, you can save it in a lossless format after doing
any editing to avoid further degradation. JPEG is simply one of many
formats, not all of which are lossy, in which you can save a photo.

Put in a sequence:

1. Take your vacation pictures in HQ mode. HQ images are still very,
very good.

2. Load the images into Photoshop or the like and modify at will.

3. Save-As filename.psd or .tif or another of the lossless formats,
probably to a different directory (I have \Photos and a \Retouched Photos
directory trees). Nothing says you have to save into the same file.

4. Keep the original images just as loaded from the camera without
modification.

By the way, the operating system has little to do with the JPEG
compression. The applications that can write JPEGs each have their own
compression algorithms, and not all are created equal. Worse yet, many
have settings you can tweak!

Noel

Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no degradation if you save in a lossless format. You can edit it as many times as you like.

Rich

Noel Carboni said:

jim said:

If I am correct in my understanding, I would use HQ for a vacation, say
camping trip in the rockies, because I am going to get more pictures per
media card. Since I am after memories, BUT I am assuming that I would be
able to edit these pictures very little because of this recompression

Click to expand...

Jim,

I think what you may be missing is that even if an image is compressed by
the camera into a JPEG, you can save it in a lossless format after doing
any editing to avoid further degradation. JPEG is simply one of many
formats, not all of which are lossy, in which you can save a photo.

Put in a sequence:

1. Take your vacation pictures in HQ mode. HQ images are still very,
very good.

2. Load the images into Photoshop or the like and modify at will.

3. Save-As filename.psd or .tif or another of the lossless formats,
probably to a different directory (I have \Photos and a \Retouched Photos
directory trees). Nothing says you have to save into the same file.

4. Keep the original images just as loaded from the camera without
modification.

By the way, the operating system has little to do with the JPEG
compression. The applications that can write JPEGs each have their own
compression algorithms, and not all are created equal. Worse yet, many
have settings you can tweak!

Noel

Click to expand...

Noel,

Thank you so much for the response. It is a very good answer. BTW, I do know that it is the application not the operating system, I apologize for the misstatement.

I appreciate your recommendation of just saving to a non-lossless format. It is so simple that I should have thought of it. Usually I just apply a filter to a given picture if I don't want to loose detail. Funny, I have saved from Tif to tif, and tif to jpeg... but not jpeg to tif.......

Thanks for the response (My wife and kids are tired of hearing me discuss it with them , have you seen the comercial where the wife had bought her husband a GPS and he is driving her nuts playing with it? She says, 'I shoulda just bought him a tie' ...... My wife says that's me )

Jim

Rich Wilson said:

Noel Carboni said:

jim said:

If I am correct in my understanding, I would use HQ for a vacation, say
camping trip in the rockies, because I am going to get more pictures per
media card. Since I am after memories, BUT I am assuming that I would be
able to edit these pictures very little because of this recompression

Click to expand...

Jim,

I think what you may be missing is that even if an image is compressed by
the camera into a JPEG, you can save it in a lossless format after doing
any editing to avoid further degradation. JPEG is simply one of many
formats, not all of which are lossy, in which you can save a photo.

Put in a sequence:

1. Take your vacation pictures in HQ mode. HQ images are still very,
very good.

2. Load the images into Photoshop or the like and modify at will.

3. Save-As filename.psd or .tif or another of the lossless formats,
probably to a different directory (I have \Photos and a \Retouched Photos
directory trees). Nothing says you have to save into the same file.

4. Keep the original images just as loaded from the camera without
modification.

By the way, the operating system has little to do with the JPEG
compression. The applications that can write JPEGs each have their own
compression algorithms, and not all are created equal. Worse yet, many
have settings you can tweak!

Noel

Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no degradation if you save in a lossless format. You
can edit it as many times as you like.

Rich

Click to expand...

Thanks Rich, have a good day (note my response to Noel also)

Will HQ on the 3000 be any better than HQ on a 2020 - (does a higher JPEG compression ratio lose

the advantage of 3.3 megapixels vs 2.2). What would be the most efficient setting for the 3000 (I m
going on a trip and will have 2 32 meg cards and an 8 meg card)

Steve

Jack A. Zucker said:

jim said:

am taking portrait grade pictures, I will continue to use SHQ. In those
circumstances I would rather take the time to but the card in a reader
and download to my pc, or laptop, because more than likely I am not in a
mobile state at that time. That's just the way I'd do it.

Click to expand...

Look at the pictures at http://www.geocities.com/jazucker_2000/01-03-00/

You can see the differences in noise between the 3 levels of compression.
There's not THAT great a difference!

Jaz

Click to expand...