SHQ vs HQ

[Hans T]

I use a Olympus D-560ZOOM which is called C-350ZOOM in Europe. Can anyone explain the difference between SHQ 2048x1536 and HQ 2048x1536? The SHQ setting produces a larger jpg-file but i can't see any difference in pixel size or quality.

 

[Jola]

HQ is much more compressed than SHQ, and as jpeg is a lossy compression technique you get a loss of detail and compression artifacts.

The quality of the SHQ files are better, even though the pixel count is the same.

I don't even want to use SHQ and in future will use RAW on my 5050.

TIFF(no compression) is impractical because of the size of the files and the slow speed, so your best option is SHQ.

I use a Olympus D-560ZOOM which is called C-350ZOOM in Europe. Can
anyone explain the difference between SHQ 2048x1536 and HQ
2048x1536? The SHQ setting produces a larger jpg-file but i can't
see any difference in pixel size or quality.

 

[Jimm]

The quality of the SHQ files are better, even though the pixel
count is the same.

I don't even want to use SHQ and in future will use RAW on my 5050.

TIFF(no compression) is impractical because of the size of the
files and the slow speed, so your best option is SHQ.

I use a Olympus D-560ZOOM which is called C-350ZOOM in Europe. Can
anyone explain the difference between SHQ 2048x1536 and HQ
2048x1536? The SHQ setting produces a larger jpg-file but i can't
see any difference in pixel size or quality.

A number of us have made comparison studies and no differences can be seen. In completing my study, I had 8x10 prints made up and there were no differences. They might show up on poster size prints. I rarely use SHQ and probably would only do so for something like flower close-ups.

--
Oly c730, Fl-40 Flash, Oly B300
Raynox 720 (.72), Raynox 5000 (.5)
Moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus-C730/

 

[yossiw]

You will notice different when you enlarge the file to his full size (100%)

I use a Olympus D-560ZOOM which is called C-350ZOOM in Europe. Can
anyone explain the difference between SHQ 2048x1536 and HQ
2048x1536? The SHQ setting produces a larger jpg-file but i can't
see any difference in pixel size or quality.

 

[Sandman]

Hans T,

If I had a dollar for every time this was discussed on this forum...LOL!

This really boils down to a matter of personal preference. Shoot a card full at one setting and then do the same at the another and make up your own mind as to which one you prefer.

Fact: SHQ is a bigger file, which means that you will get fewer images on a given size card AND the file will occupy more space on your harddrive AND will take longer to write to the card as you are shooting. All of these are potential disadvantages.

Fact: There is less JPG compression with SHQ. This means there is more original data from the image and less mathematical characterization of the data. Theoretically this should make for a "cleaner" image, capable of more work in postprocessing and capable of producing a better print (you most likely will not see ANY difference on your computer screen).

Several years ago when flash memory was SOOOOO expensive and hard drive space was at a premium, file size was a valid concern and the trade off between image size and image quality was harder to make. Today this is certainly not true. Memory is cheap and huge hard drives are within the reach of anyone who can afford a digicam capable of producing them. I personally use SHQ, but you make this decision for yourself. After all, these are YOUR images!

Hope this was helpful,

jim