S75 Image Processing...

[Mike F.]

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200, which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics (post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200 pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.

 

[Ron Parr]

Read page 8 of Phil's review.

Ron Parr

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am
curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve
space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the
cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200,
which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this
before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with
this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics
(post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200
pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.

 

[TurboTed]

Mike,

It actually is a little faster. The bottleneck currently in the Cybershot line appears to be the write speed of the memory sticks. Smaller pictures means less to write which in turn take less time.

The quality of the downsizing is excellent, at least as good if not better than PhotoShop can do after the fact...

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am
curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve
space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the
cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200,
which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this
before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with
this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics
(post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200
pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.

 

[Ron Parr]

TurboTed,

I tried some experiments a while back with my S85 and found that it did a really bad job of downsizing to 640x480. I wasn't as scientific with 1600x1200 reductions. I hope they're better. Have you done side-by-side comparisons?

Ron Parr

It actually is a little faster. The bottleneck currently in the
Cybershot line appears to be the write speed of the memory sticks.
Smaller pictures means less to write which in turn take less time.

The quality of the downsizing is excellent, at least as good if not
better than PhotoShop can do after the fact...

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am
curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve
space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the
cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200,
which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this
before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with
this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics
(post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200
pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.

 

[TurboTed]

I have not done any scientific comparisons but I recall a thread or two discussing the issue of downsampling.

In my case, with an S70, I have no choice of JPG compression. Its default is to use fine quality for anything greater than 640x480. In the case of 640x480, the camera appears to change into a very high compression resulting in very low image quality.

Now that the S75 and greater cameras have the image quality selection, you can get the 640x480 with a decent quality. (At least compared to F505, S70)

Are you finding the 640x480, at the Fine setting to be terribly inferior?

I tried some experiments a while back with my S85 and found that it
did a really bad job of downsizing to 640x480. I wasn't as
scientific with 1600x1200 reductions. I hope they're better. Have
you done side-by-side comparisons?

Ron Parr

It actually is a little faster. The bottleneck currently in the
Cybershot line appears to be the write speed of the memory sticks.
Smaller pictures means less to write which in turn take less time.

The quality of the downsizing is excellent, at least as good if not
better than PhotoShop can do after the fact...

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am
curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve
space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the
cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200,
which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this
before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with
this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics
(post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200
pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.

 

[Ron Parr]

I was very unhappy with my results in 640x480 mode (fine) on my S85. I did a side by side comparison and found that reducing in photoshop gave both a sharper image and a smaller file. I still have the shots lying around, so I could repost them if there is interest.

Ron

In my case, with an S70, I have no choice of JPG compression. Its
default is to use fine quality for anything greater than 640x480.
In the case of 640x480, the camera appears to change into a very
high compression resulting in very low image quality.

Now that the S75 and greater cameras have the image quality
selection, you can get the 640x480 with a decent quality. (At least
compared to F505, S70)

Are you finding the 640x480, at the Fine setting to be terribly
inferior?

I tried some experiments a while back with my S85 and found that it
did a really bad job of downsizing to 640x480. I wasn't as
scientific with 1600x1200 reductions. I hope they're better. Have
you done side-by-side comparisons?

Ron Parr

It actually is a little faster. The bottleneck currently in the
Cybershot line appears to be the write speed of the memory sticks.
Smaller pictures means less to write which in turn take less time.

The quality of the downsizing is excellent, at least as good if not
better than PhotoShop can do after the fact...

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am
curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve
space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the
cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200,
which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this
before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with
this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics
(post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200
pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.

 

[TurboTed]

I was very unhappy with my results in 640x480 mode (fine) on my
S85. I did a side by side comparison and found that reducing in
photoshop gave both a sharper image and a smaller file. I still
have the shots lying around, so I could repost them if there is
interest.

Ron

I'd be interested. I guess it doesn't hurt to post them.

In my case, with an S70, I have no choice of JPG compression. Its
default is to use fine quality for anything greater than 640x480.
In the case of 640x480, the camera appears to change into a very
high compression resulting in very low image quality.

Now that the S75 and greater cameras have the image quality
selection, you can get the 640x480 with a decent quality. (At least
compared to F505, S70)

Are you finding the 640x480, at the Fine setting to be terribly
inferior?

I tried some experiments a while back with my S85 and found that it
did a really bad job of downsizing to 640x480. I wasn't as
scientific with 1600x1200 reductions. I hope they're better. Have
you done side-by-side comparisons?

Ron Parr

It actually is a little faster. The bottleneck currently in the
Cybershot line appears to be the write speed of the memory sticks.
Smaller pictures means less to write which in turn take less time.

The quality of the downsizing is excellent, at least as good if not
better than PhotoShop can do after the fact...

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am
curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve
space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the
cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200,
which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this
before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with
this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics
(post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200
pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.

 

[TurboTed]

Okay, I used Phil's own crayon samples for the F707 to do a quick test. You are right about 640x480. The downsampled version from the camera is not so bad but it is much softer than a downsamled PhotoShop version.

Ron

In my case, with an S70, I have no choice of JPG compression. Its
default is to use fine quality for anything greater than 640x480.
In the case of 640x480, the camera appears to change into a very
high compression resulting in very low image quality.

Now that the S75 and greater cameras have the image quality
selection, you can get the 640x480 with a decent quality. (At least
compared to F505, S70)

Are you finding the 640x480, at the Fine setting to be terribly
inferior?

I tried some experiments a while back with my S85 and found that it
did a really bad job of downsizing to 640x480. I wasn't as
scientific with 1600x1200 reductions. I hope they're better. Have
you done side-by-side comparisons?

Ron Parr

It actually is a little faster. The bottleneck currently in the
Cybershot line appears to be the write speed of the memory sticks.
Smaller pictures means less to write which in turn take less time.

The quality of the downsizing is excellent, at least as good if not
better than PhotoShop can do after the fact...

I am interested in purchasing an S75 in the near future, and am
curious about an aspect of the cam.

I will probably be shooting mostly in 1600x1200 res (to conserve
space), and at other times the 3MP limit. My question is, does the
cam take longer to process 1600x1200 pics than the native 3MP?

If I've read correctly, the cam downsizes the shot to 1600x1200,
which makes me think that it takes a little extra time doing this
before sending the pic to the Memory Card...

... I am just curious to know if taking "lower res" photos with
this cam is faster rather than taking the full, high res. ??

As well, is there a noticeable difference between the 3MP FINE pics
(post-sized to 1600x1200) and the in-cam processed FINE 1600x1200
pics?

Thanks for your time,

• Mike F.