question: size does matter but does quality too?

[Wolfgang Tichy]

Hi!

Just a question about quality, maybe you could share your thoughts:

I understand that if you want to be able to make bigger prints, you should take the pics in a higher resolution, that's up to 2048x1536 on my S75.

But what about jpg quality settings: on my first pics I could NOT find a big difference between "fine" and "standard" settings. "Standard" uses a lot less memory!

So would it be better to take the pic a little bit bigger with standard quality, or smaller with fine quality? Don't tell me "bigger with fine quality" is best, I know that.

Just if you are short on memory, what kind of tradeoff would you make?

Thanx

Wolfgang

 

[chipbear]

this was of great concern to me too. Even with a 128mb and 64mb MS, I often uses only the standard quality (at highest res of course). I just dun like having to change MS in the middle of something. Besides, to me, the difference in quality is hardly noticeable and the standard quality is already a 800+kb file, which is large enough to mean the level of compression is not that high (it's stated, but I dun see the need to quote that here).

In short, standard quality is good enuf for me.

chipbear

Hi!

Just a question about quality, maybe you could share your thoughts:

I understand that if you want to be able to make bigger prints, you
should take the pics in a higher resolution, that's up to 2048x1536
on my S75.

But what about jpg quality settings: on my first pics I could NOT
find a big difference between "fine" and "standard" settings.
"Standard" uses a lot less memory!

So would it be better to take the pic a little bit bigger with
standard quality, or smaller with fine quality? Don't tell me
"bigger with fine quality" is best, I know that.

Just if you are short on memory, what kind of tradeoff would you make?

Thanx

Wolfgang

 

[jdc43927]

this was of great concern to me too. Even with a 128mb and 64mb MS,
I often uses only the standard quality (at highest res of course).
I just dun like having to change MS in the middle of something.
Besides, to me, the difference in quality is hardly noticeable and
the standard quality is already a 800+kb file, which is large
enough to mean the level of compression is not that high (it's
stated, but I dun see the need to quote that here).

Amusingly enough, if you take the JPEGs created by the Sony digital series of cameras (in "Standard" mode as you put it; some of them don't have a selection mode, like the S70) and re-save them in Photoshop 6.0 using the exact same quality settings , you get 220KB images! Most of my JPEGs on my S70, at 1280x960, are around 500KB each -- when taken directly from the camera. When re-saved in Photoshop 6.0, they're around 120 to 150KB. Want proof? Take a look at the images I took earlier today which were copied directly off my S70 and stuck on my website (meaning Photoshop was not involved at all). Be sure to notice the file sizes.

http://www.parodius.com/~jdc/eye-candy/digicam/2001_05_02/

I've yet to figure out exactly why this is. It's highly likely that Sony either picked a very poorly engineered JPEG compression ASIC, or the cameras could be doing the compression completely by software (hence the "long" save times to the MS card). JPEG compression ASICs take zero time to compress, so, I'm not sure what's up with this.

Also notice the images are not in sequential order -- I had to delete half of them due to focusing problems (!!!) -- and yeah, I did focus via the "half-button" method prior to taking them. Here's the best part (as a solution): throwing the camera into Macro mode results in more accurately focused pictures which involve distant__ objects . Oooooooookay...

I'm convinced my S70 is either completely screwed or that the camera is just engineered horribly to begin with. I definitely didn't get what I paid for. =( I hope the S75 is better than this.

 

[Ulysses]

Just a comment and a question:

Amusingly enough, if you take the JPEGs created by the Sony digital
series of cameras (in "Standard" mode as you put it; some of them
don't have a selection mode, like the S70) and re-save them in
Photoshop 6.0 using the exact same quality settings , you get
220KB images!

How do you know that you're using the same quality settings in Photoshop? There is no way to know this as everyone's "scale" is implemented differently. It doesn't work like this, unless I'm mistaking what it is that you're saying.

I've yet to figure out exactly why this is. It's highly likely
that Sony either picked a very poorly engineered JPEG compression ASIC

Nuh-uh... Sony has one of the best algorithms going when it comes to JPEG compression. This is why their images are so free of JPEG artifacts in comparison to other cameras. This is one thing that is not a problem with Sony cameras.

 

[Old Ed]

Wolfgang -

You seem to be a bit short on direct answers to your
question, in the posts so far. So try this:

Definitely: Keep the maximum resolution, and drop
back to "Standard" compression if you need to reduce
file size. This will do a much better job than reducing
resolution and using low compression.

Hi!

Just a question about quality, maybe you could share your thoughts:

I understand that if you want to be able to make bigger prints, you
should take the pics in a higher resolution, that's up to 2048x1536
on my S75.

But what about jpg quality settings: on my first pics I could NOT
find a big difference between "fine" and "standard" settings.
"Standard" uses a lot less memory!

So would it be better to take the pic a little bit bigger with
standard quality, or smaller with fine quality? Don't tell me
"bigger with fine quality" is best, I know that.

Just if you are short on memory, what kind of tradeoff would you make?

Thanx

Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Tichy]

Wolfgang -

You seem to be a bit short on direct answers to your
question, in the posts so far. So try this:

Thanx Old Ed, I will use standard compression and max resolution unless memory gets really tight...

I just printed a 1600x1200 pic in A4 on my deskjet and I had to size it down to make it fit. Quality is superb. So for printing at home 1600x1200 would be just enough for me as well, I guess.

Know I will try ordering prints from my photo store to see the quality I get there and if I need higher resolution for them.

They stated that for prints up to 20x30 cm they would need 1600x1200, up to 25x37 2048x1536.

next problem: should I be using 2048 (3:2) instead of 2048x1536. Would make sence if I order prints?! But on the monitor?

Well, I guess these are the problems of a newcomer to digital photography....

So thank you all for your suggestions!

Wolfgang

 

[T. L. Rutter]

So here's another question along the same lines: Why do we need to take pictures in TIFF format? What is the purpose or advantage of shooting a TIFF file as opposed to jpg?

Will there be a difference in print quality by choosing STANDARD or FINE?

Thanks,
T. L. Rutter

 

[Wolfgang Tichy]

So here's another question along the same lines: Why do we need to
take pictures in TIFF format? What is the purpose or advantage of
shooting a TIFF file as opposed to jpg?

Hi!

JPG compresses the image with the effect of quality reduction, tiff does not. However nowadays jpg compression is that good that you wont be able to see the difference. (at least not me)
However, tiff files are MUCH MUCH bigger! so forget it I'd say.

Wolfgang

 

[fg]

I've used TIFF when I knew my image was going to be used for magizine publication, and I was shooting in a studio setting where I could dump my images every 5 min. The difference is subtle but it's there. ALSO if you know you'll be doing A LOT of manipulation it dosn't hurt to go TIFF because it seems manipulation brings out the artifacts.

I've rarely used it, but it's nice to know it's there...

The more detailed the image, the more you can see the artifacts (like in strands of hair, leaves on a tree, grass, etc...) but to the average user shooting the average pix it's neligible. (for both TIFF and compresssion)

 

[jdc43927]

Amusingly enough, if you take the JPEGs created by the Sony digital
series of cameras (in "Standard" mode as you put it; some of them
don't have a selection mode, like the S70) and re-save them in
Photoshop 6.0 using the exact same quality settings , you get
220KB images!

How do you know that you're using the same quality settings in
Photoshop? There is no way to know this as everyone's "scale" is
implemented differently. It doesn't work like this, unless I'm
mistaking what it is that you're saying.

Photoshop 6.0's quality settings go from 1 to 12 (5.0's went from 1 to 10). Twelve is the maximum; this level of JPEG compression is practically non-lossy, and results in huge files.

I don't think the "scale" is implemented differently here; JPEG is JPEG is JPEG. The Sony doesn't use that odd JPEG format... what's it call, JFIF or something like that. A JPEG compatible "clone" I guess, which isn't readable as a native JPEG. Blah. My point is, we DO have new JPEG add-on technologies like JPEG Optimised, and JPEG Progressive, which can greatly decrease (or increase) the size of the file. I've seen Optimised result in larger files, but 95% of the time, it drops the size down (on larger resolution images) by about 25%.

What I'm referring to is the fact that the camera is spitting out so-called "compressed" images (JPEG) onto the MS, in 1280x960, which are anywhere between 500 and 600KB.

These same pictures can be taken down to practically 150KB under compression level 10 in Photoshop 6.0 (I won't bother with 12, unless there's a major colour gradient across a flat surface; rainbows or the like come to mind). This makes me wonder what kind-of ASIC Sony is using in their cameras; these images, on an S70, should be about 200-300KB using the least lossy compression setting there is. Yet they're twice that size.

It is this that I find amusing. This is PURE** heresy: I wonder if the reason is that Sony wishes for you to buy more MemorySticks rather than fit as much possible onto one. Marketing ploy anyone? It's just an idea.

I've yet to figure out exactly why this is. It's highly likely
that Sony either picked a very poorly engineered JPEG compression ASIC

Nuh-uh... Sony has one of the best algorithms going when it comes
to JPEG compression. This is why their images are so free of JPEG
artifacts in comparison to other cameras. This is one thing that is
not a problem with Sony cameras.

I'm not necessarily arguing the "algorythm" here. I'm referring to the actual JPEG compression ASIC. There is a little IC (a chip ;-) ) inside the camera which is doing all of the compression work for JPEGs and MPEGs. This chip, obviously, permits settings of sorts to be passed to it (compression level being the primary). I want to know what ASIC Sony is using, and why it results in such gargantuan JPEGs.

In support of your question though, I've also looked at the TIFFs the S70 can spit out. Good lord. Definitely TIFF, that's for sure! They do look great (no compression; well, that particular TIFF implementation isn't doing compression -- there ARE compressed TIFFs), but you waste the majority of your MS. JPEG is indeed the best choice for media like the MS. Ditto with MPEG. Now if I could just find out what they're using inside the little bugger!

 

[jdc43927]

So here's another question along the same lines: Why do we need to
take pictures in TIFF format? What is the purpose or advantage of
shooting a TIFF file as opposed to jpg?

TIFFs on the S70 are uncompressed. In English: there is no quality loss during the process of converting the stored image (the snapshot) to the file format in question (TIFF). It's practically a raw RGB dump, per-pixel, of what the camera snags. These can be considered Perfect(tm). Oh, I forgot to mention, TIFFs can be images up to 32-bit in colour depth (meaning 32 bits per pixel in colour; 4294967296 possible colours per pixel ).

(NOTE: There ARE** such things as "compressed TIFFs," but they are rarely used. The Sony series of cameras don't seem to do compressed TIFFs: GOOD! The file format is gross for compressed TIFFs...)

JPEG is used the most widely. The reason for JPEG was obvious; the compression algorythym is tunable, and very VERY well done -- but only for images with a diverse amount of colour. JPEG compression is lossy, but it depends on the compression level you choose. In English: JPEG is your best bet for most of your images, if you want to get the most out of your MemoryStick AND almost-perfect pictures. The compression is BARELY visible to the human eye.

Will there be a difference in print quality by choosing STANDARD or
FINE?

Oh definitely, but it depends on what DPI setting you use for printing. STANDARD and FINE are similar to the following -- however, KNOW THIS: I do NOT KNOW what Sony chose for compression levels of "Standard" and "Fine." Standard could mean compression level 5, while Fine could be level 10.

Here, maybe it would be best for me just to show you the difference between three JPEGs. The image I used is just a simple colour gradient, similar to that of a sunset, with some white text in front of it.

Image 1: Compression level 1 (very compressed; horrible quality)



Image 2: Compression level 5 (compressed; "low-medium" quality)



Image 3: Compression level 10 (very very good quality)



Oh yeah, file sizes! Image 1 == 6KB, Image 2 == 8KB, Image 3 == 17KB.

Make sense now?

 

[Ulysses]

Can't help you with the ASIC at this particular time.

However, I can say that what we see in the F505V as well as in the S70 is a response to user feedback who said that they wanted a LOT less compression in their JPEG images than was being seen in the original F505 Cyber-shot.

Sony then gave the public the default Fine compression, but this level ONLY, as it exists in the F505V and S70. Reviewers and others complained that we needed to have a choice of compression levels.

And the S75 with its Fine and Standard was born. Actually, the Standard level looks pretty decent.