Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
>>now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
>>way out there on your speculations.

>
>
> Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
> efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
> it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
> "skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
> that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
> soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
> built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
> etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines.
>


Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.

Medical imaging already does some rather interesting things, such as a
large pill that you can swallow that transmits thousands of images from
inside your body to a receiver as it passes through the digestive
system. It contains imaging system, light, battery, and transmitter.
But it isn't cheap!


--
Ron Hunter http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
In article <Om62e.5388$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ASAAR wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
> >>now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
> >>way out there on your speculations.

> >
> >
> > Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
> > efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
> > it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
> > "skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
> > that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
> > soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
> > built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
> > etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines.
> >

>
> Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.


It sounds like it only works with the Kodak easywhateverthingy site. I
wouldn't put much trust in technology that's locked into using a
specific proprietary web page. Make one that can talk to a simple
open-source server and I'll be impressed.

Of course public bandwidth is still an issue. I tried to upload my
photos to my home computer from Oahu but the whole island is wired with
Time Warner/Road Runner service that's barely faster than dialup. It
wasn't usable. Last time I was in Germany, I had to leave the camera
uploading for hours on a friend's ISDN.


> Medical imaging already does some rather interesting things, such as a
> large pill that you can swallow that transmits thousands of images from
> inside your body to a receiver as it passes through the digestive
> system. It contains imaging system, light, battery, and transmitter.
> But it isn't cheap!


And you have to give it back when you're done with it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>You make many assumptions, many of which aren't true in general.


>It takes my camera about 25 seconds to write 6 jpg pictures to the flash
>card. The files are about 1 meg each. Given a write speed in that
>range, you figure out how long it would take to write a RAW file from a
>camera with 8 MP.


If you extrapolate from your camera (what is it?) to an 8 MP camera, you
may well get a 30 sec write speed. But, in fact, are there any 8 MP
cameras that take this long? Or do all 8 MP cameras have faster
interfaces? I certainly don't recall reading any reviews of cameras
with that sort of single-image RAW write times. That was my point.

>If you snap pictures until you fill the camera's
>buffer, it will probably take at least that 30 seconds before it has
>emptied the buffer to the card, UNLESS you have a very fast camera, and
>a very fast card. So the warning is well-founded.


But the time to empty a full buffer is very different from the time to
write a single image. I thought we were talking about the latter in
this branch of the thread.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:14:09 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.


Then that might be the one I read about. The name was the
_something_ One. If I remember correctly, one drawback was that it
didn't have a viewfinder.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:08:34 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> And you have to give it back when you're done with it.


Nothing wrong with that. It's the doctors that might need it
quickly to be used for the next patient that might cause problems by
reaching into places where the sun don't shine.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <Om62e.5388$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>ASAAR wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
>>>>now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
>>>>way out there on your speculations.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
>>>efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
>>>it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
>>>"skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
>>>that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
>>>soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
>>>built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
>>>etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines.
>>>

>>
>>Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.

>
>
> It sounds like it only works with the Kodak easywhateverthingy site. I
> wouldn't put much trust in technology that's locked into using a
> specific proprietary web page. Make one that can talk to a simple
> open-source server and I'll be impressed.


My understanding is that it will work with any WiFi setup. Perhaps I
misread. If it wouldn't work on my wireless internet system, it
wouldn't be of much use to me.

>
> Of course public bandwidth is still an issue. I tried to upload my
> photos to my home computer from Oahu but the whole island is wired with
> Time Warner/Road Runner service that's barely faster than dialup. It
> wasn't usable. Last time I was in Germany, I had to leave the camera
> uploading for hours on a friend's ISDN.
>
>
>
>>Medical imaging already does some rather interesting things, such as a
>>large pill that you can swallow that transmits thousands of images from
>>inside your body to a receiver as it passes through the digestive
>>system. It contains imaging system, light, battery, and transmitter.
>>But it isn't cheap!

>
>
> And you have to give it back when you're done with it.

Worse, yet, you have to retrieve it for them!



--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>
>>You make many assumptions, many of which aren't true in general.

>
>
>>It takes my camera about 25 seconds to write 6 jpg pictures to the flash
>>card. The files are about 1 meg each. Given a write speed in that
>>range, you figure out how long it would take to write a RAW file from a
>>camera with 8 MP.

>
>
> If you extrapolate from your camera (what is it?) to an 8 MP camera, you
> may well get a 30 sec write speed. But, in fact, are there any 8 MP
> cameras that take this long? Or do all 8 MP cameras have faster
> interfaces? I certainly don't recall reading any reviews of cameras
> with that sort of single-image RAW write times. That was my point.
>
>
>>If you snap pictures until you fill the camera's
>>buffer, it will probably take at least that 30 seconds before it has
>>emptied the buffer to the card, UNLESS you have a very fast camera, and
>>a very fast card. So the warning is well-founded.

>
>
> But the time to empty a full buffer is very different from the time to
> write a single image. I thought we were talking about the latter in
> this branch of the thread.
>
> Dave


We are talking about bytes to write. I have read a lot of comments
about slow writing of RAW and .TIFF files to flash media. I assume that
if you buy a $1500 camera, it will write fast enough to make the 80x
flash cards worthwhile, but that is still only about 5 megabytes/sec.,
and there is a bit of overhead to consider as well.
In ANY case, RAW will take several times as long as a .jpg to write to
the card, and .TIFF even longer than RAW. Many users seem to consider
these delays limiting.
And, of course, you get to change cards more often as well.
I also understand that when reviewing RAW files, there can be more delay
than with .jpg files.

--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
Louise <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Canon - 1743kb
> Kodak - 736kb


You can use the "jpegdump" program to ascertain what JPEG quality values
and chroma subsampling were used to write these images.

If you don't have access to "jpegdump" put some Canon and Kodak pictures
online and I'll run the program for you.

I'm curious to know how Canon and Kodak JPEG compares.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Uttley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bill Tuthill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Louise <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Canon - 1743kb
>> Kodak - 736kb

>
>You can use the "jpegdump" program to ascertain what JPEG quality values
>and chroma subsampling were used to write these images.
>
>If you don't have access to "jpegdump" put some Canon and Kodak pictures
>online and I'll run the program for you.
>
>I'm curious to know how Canon and Kodak JPEG compares.


I noticed a comparable jpg size difference between images taken
on the Canon 300D and a Sony DSC-P5. The 300D images were consistently
50% larger. I downloaded a trial version of PhotoMan from
http://homepages.tesco.net/~Keith.Sh...toman/home.htm
and discovered the Canon images contained a lot of filler following
the headers and image data.

I used Irfanview's "JPG - Lossless Transformations" with the "NONE"
setting to effectively optimize and clean the data. Afterward the
size of the Canon 300D jpg images were approximately the same size
as the Sony images.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2005
Bruce Uttley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I noticed a comparable jpg size difference between images taken
> on the Canon 300D and a Sony DSC-P5. The 300D images were consistently
> 50% larger. I downloaded a trial version of PhotoMan from
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~Keith.Sh...toman/home.htm
> and discovered the Canon images contained a lot of filler following
> the headers and image data.
>
> I used Irfanview's "JPG - Lossless Transformations" with the "NONE"
> setting to effectively optimize and clean the data. Afterward the
> size of the Canon 300D jpg images were approximately the same size
> as the Sony images.


Interesting...

A friend who has a Canon PowerShit G3 gives me JPEG quality 88-93
with 2:1 chroma subsampling. Probably not the highest Q setting.

These files are extremely bloated, not just with EXIF.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak DX6340 jpg size very small at max res. aussieworker Digital Photography 6 01-03-2005 07:54 PM
Question re jpg file format, trying to add jpg comments Chris Digital Photography 0 10-21-2004 02:10 PM
Wrong image size of JPG after TIFF to JPG conversion with JAI Roland Java 0 05-12-2004 03:52 PM
jpg file size ---> print size problem mark heinemann Digital Photography 5 04-29-2004 12:48 AM
Quick Book file access very very very slow Thomas Reed Computer Support 7 04-09-2004 08:09 PM



Advertisments