Pixels vs. Compression

[db.]

If there is need to save
space on the CF card,
my Canon S20 offers two
different possibilities: I can
shoot smaller pictures
(1024x768 instead of
2048x1536 pixels) or
choose the "fine"com-
pression instead of "super-
fine"; the result--as far as
space economy goes--is
similar.

I wonder if I'm right assum-
ing that in order to maintain
as high a picture quality as
still possible (for pictures I
might one day want to be able
to enlarge when printing) more
pixels and more compression is
still better--or at least less
bad---than less compression and
less pixels.
Anyone knowing for sure??
Daniel B.

 

[Dan C.]

I would use the highest amount of pixels with more compression. That way you will still have pixels to crop and do digital darkroom work with. You can get a high quality picture with both options, however, the ability to crop is always good. I have taken some great pictures with my C2500L at HQ and compared them to SHQ. I do not see much of a difference in those compression ratios of 1/8 to 1/2.3, even on 8X10 prints.

Dan C.

If there is need to save
space on the CF card,
my Canon S20 offers two
different possibilities: I can
shoot smaller pictures
(1024x768 instead of
2048x1536 pixels) or
choose the "fine"com-
pression instead of "super-
fine"; the result--as far as
space economy goes--is
similar.

I wonder if I'm right assum-
ing that in order to maintain
as high a picture quality as
still possible (for pictures I
might one day want to be able
to enlarge when printing) more
pixels and more compression is
still better--or at least less
bad---than less compression and
less pixels.
Anyone knowing for sure??
Daniel B.

 

[harry]

When JPEG2000 becomes widely adopted, could most of today's high-end (say 2 mp +) digicams be upgraded through firmware? Phil's latest news on Paint Shop Pro beta demonstrated it'd be possible to "smooth out" the abbrevations due to high JPEG compression.

Easyn40

Dan C.

If there is need to save
space on the CF card,
my Canon S20 offers two
different possibilities: I can
shoot smaller pictures
(1024x768 instead of
2048x1536 pixels) or
choose the "fine"com-
pression instead of "super-
fine"; the result--as far as
space economy goes--is
similar.

I wonder if I'm right assum-
ing that in order to maintain
as high a picture quality as
still possible (for pictures I
might one day want to be able
to enlarge when printing) more
pixels and more compression is
still better--or at least less
bad---than less compression and
less pixels.
Anyone knowing for sure??
Daniel B.