«

Photos taken with the Kodak P850 cannot be displayed
in the C330. It says file format not recognized.
However, the P850 displays photos taken with the same
card in the C330. Would I be able to download them as well
to my PC from the P850?
Why does this happen? I am not saving as RAW or TIFF.
A jpg should be the same on any model or camera.
Would a card reader recognize photos on a card taken
with different models of same brand cameras?
How about different brands, Kodak then Panasonic?

"Mr.Bolshoyhuy" <> wrote in
news: oups.com:

> to my PC from the P850?
> Why does this happen? I am not saving as RAW or TIFF.

Some cameras are unable to render anything but the resolution they produce.
Also, they can't use embedded thumbnails if they aren't in the expected
resolution (because they would have to resize the thumbnail on the fly and,
at this point, camera firmware designers don't see why they should do
it/don'r have the resources . This also happens with relatively high end
dslrs.

Pierre/PhotoRescue

On 23 Oct 2006 16:25:02 -0700, Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:

> Photos taken with the Kodak P850 cannot be displayed
> in the C330. It says file format not recognized.
> However, the P850 displays photos taken with the same
> card in the C330. Would I be able to download them as well
> to my PC from the P850?
> Why does this happen? I am not saving as RAW or TIFF.

Perhaps the pictures taken with the P850 used a higher quality,
lower compression jpg format than the C330 supports? It could also
be that the C330 was designed like some of my old Canon cameras, and
creates one or two files that keep track of pictures it has taken
(sort of a database identifying recently taken pictures still saved
on the card that it should know about) and won't display any alien
photos.


> A jpg should be the same on any model or camera.

See above. Not all jpg files are the same, and a small,
inexpensive camera may support only a small subset of jpg features
and types, in order to minimize the amount of firmware it needs to
use, smaller amounts of firmware adding pennies of profit per
camera.


> Would a card reader recognize photos on a card taken
> with different models of same brand cameras?

Card readers don't need to understand anything about photos. They
can be used to transfer files of any type. If you ever have damaged
photos on a card that the camera can't properly display, you should
still be able to copy them using the card reader to the computer,
and the copy should be 100% identical to the damaged photo on the
card. Whether a photo viewing app. is able to display it any better
than the camera was able to depends on how severely it was damaged.
If you go to a computer store and see card readers displayed on a
rack or in a glass case, examine them closely. You will NOT see on,
say, a Sandisk card reader anything like "May only be used to
transfer Panasonic JPG files". They'll transfer anything they can,
be they jpg files, mp3 files, xls files, doc files, dll files, exe
files, bat files, inf files, html files, etc.


> How about different brands, Kodak then Panasonic?

I don't know anything about how Panasonic designs their cameras,
but from what you've already said, all Kodaks aren't designed alike.
I'm not really sure what your question was intended to ask, though.

ASAAR wrote:
>
> On 23 Oct 2006 16:25:02 -0700, Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
>
> > Photos taken with the Kodak P850 cannot be displayed
> > in the C330. It says file format not recognized.
> > However, the P850 displays photos taken with the same
> > card in the C330. Would I be able to download them as well
> > to my PC from the P850?
> > Why does this happen? I am not saving as RAW or TIFF.

<heavily edited, for brevity>

> > How about different brands, Kodak then Panasonic?
>
> I don't know anything about how Panasonic designs their cameras,
> but from what you've already said, all Kodaks aren't designed alike.
> I'm not really sure what your question was intended to ask, though.


Hello, ASAAR:

Recently, I copied 230+ pictures, from different digicams, to a 256MB
SD card. I did this in order to view them on my Sanyo HT30744 (30"
wide-screen HDTV CRT set), via my new Panasonic DMR-ES45V (VHS/DVD
combination recorder).

Among many other handy features, the Panasonic has a built-in SD slot,
and an HDMI output. Using the Sanyo's HDMI input, the DMR-ES45V
up-scales video to 720p/1080i resolution; thus, it did a superb job
of displaying the digital photos, and its menu system and "slideshow"
function were both joys to operate.

Anyway, I later put that same, loaded card in my Kodak DX6490, and it
was able to show all of the snapshots stored on it, with its 2.2" LCD
panel. Those pics included some from my very first digital camera
(Largan "Lmini 350," bought nearly six years ago).

They all looked pretty good, too -- even the Largan's measly 350,000
pixel (640x480) ones. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <>

On 30 Oct 2006 23:59:35 EST, John Turco wrote:

> Recently, I copied 230+ pictures, from different digicams, to a 256MB
> SD card. I did this in order to view them on my Sanyo HT30744 (30"
> wide-screen HDTV CRT set), via my new Panasonic DMR-ES45V (VHS/DVD
> combination recorder).
>
>
> Among many other handy features, the Panasonic has a built-in SD slot,
> and an HDMI output. Using the Sanyo's HDMI input, the DMR-ES45V
> up-scales video to 720p/1080i resolution; thus, it did a superb job
> of displaying the digital photos, and its menu system and "slideshow"
> function were both joys to operate.

I've had good results displaying JPGs by connecting a TV to the
camera's video out. But the one time I tried displaying JPGs copied
to a CD and viewed from a DVD player the picture quality was much
lower. It was a very cheap DVD player that needs to be replaced,
btw. Does the DMR-ES45V do a good job displaying from CDs?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:45:57 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:

>On 30 Oct 2006 23:59:35 EST, John Turco wrote:
>
>> Recently, I copied 230+ pictures, from different digicams, to a 256MB
>> SD card. I did this in order to view them on my Sanyo HT30744 (30"
>> wide-screen HDTV CRT set), via my new Panasonic DMR-ES45V (VHS/DVD
>> combination recorder).
>>
>>
>> Among many other handy features, the Panasonic has a built-in SD slot,
>> and an HDMI output. Using the Sanyo's HDMI input, the DMR-ES45V
>> up-scales video to 720p/1080i resolution; thus, it did a superb job
>> of displaying the digital photos, and its menu system and "slideshow"
>> function were both joys to operate.
>
> I've had good results displaying JPGs by connecting a TV to the
>camera's video out. But the one time I tried displaying JPGs copied
>to a CD and viewed from a DVD player the picture quality was much
>lower. It was a very cheap DVD player that needs to be replaced,
>btw. Does the DMR-ES45V do a good job displaying from CDs?

It's not the DVD player that made the pics on the CD seem poor; it was
the fact that they were on a CD.
The fact is that JPEGs on a CD just look like crap; it's the same with
video; VCD mode is worse than VHS.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:27:55 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>> I've had good results displaying JPGs by connecting a TV to the
>> camera's video out. But the one time I tried displaying JPGs copied
>> to a CD and viewed from a DVD player the picture quality was much
>> lower. It was a very cheap DVD player that needs to be replaced,
>> btw. Does the DMR-ES45V do a good job displaying from CDs?
>
> It's not the DVD player that made the pics on the CD seem poor; it was
> the fact that they were on a CD.
> The fact is that JPEGs on a CD just look like crap; it's the same with
> video; VCD mode is worse than VHS.

That was my observation. But why, since the same JPG displayed
from the camera looks so much better? I understand why videos
appear sharper than viewing their individual frames would indicate,
but the JPGs viewed from both the camera and the CD are both static.
All I can think of is that the camera's video output bypasses much
of the TV's circuitry, but what isn't clear is why that circuitry
would degrade the signal so much.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:50:03 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:27:55 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>> I've had good results displaying JPGs by connecting a TV to the
>>> camera's video out. But the one time I tried displaying JPGs copied
>>> to a CD and viewed from a DVD player the picture quality was much
>>> lower. It was a very cheap DVD player that needs to be replaced,
>>> btw. Does the DMR-ES45V do a good job displaying from CDs?
>>
>> It's not the DVD player that made the pics on the CD seem poor; it was
>> the fact that they were on a CD.
>> The fact is that JPEGs on a CD just look like crap; it's the same with
>> video; VCD mode is worse than VHS.
>
> That was my observation. But why, since the same JPG displayed
>from the camera looks so much better? I understand why videos
>appear sharper than viewing their individual frames would indicate,
>but the JPGs viewed from both the camera and the CD are both static.
>All I can think of is that the camera's video output bypasses much
>of the TV's circuitry, but what isn't clear is why that circuitry
>would degrade the signal so much.

It's a function of the burning software for CDs.
JPEGs on CDs need to be of a certain resolution because the CD/DVD
reader won't read CDs except those that are burned with certain
software characteristics.
IOW, that's the way it is.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:50:03 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:27:55 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>>> I've had good results displaying JPGs by connecting a TV to the
>>>> camera's video out. But the one time I tried displaying JPGs copied
>>>> to a CD and viewed from a DVD player the picture quality was much
>>>> lower. It was a very cheap DVD player that needs to be replaced,
>>>> btw. Does the DMR-ES45V do a good job displaying from CDs?
>>>
>>> It's not the DVD player that made the pics on the CD seem poor; it was
>>> the fact that they were on a CD.
>>> The fact is that JPEGs on a CD just look like crap; it's the same with
>>> video; VCD mode is worse than VHS.
>>
>> That was my observation. But why, since the same JPG displayed
>>from the camera looks so much better? I understand why videos
>>appear sharper than viewing their individual frames would indicate,
>>but the JPGs viewed from both the camera and the CD are both static.
>>All I can think of is that the camera's video output bypasses much
>>of the TV's circuitry, but what isn't clear is why that circuitry
>>would degrade the signal so much.
>
> It's a function of the burning software for CDs.
> JPEGs on CDs need to be of a certain resolution because the CD/DVD
> reader won't read CDs except those that are burned with certain
> software characteristics.
> IOW, that's the way it is.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"




how do the pictures look when you put the disk into your computer?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:56:49 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>> That was my observation. But why, since the same JPG displayed
>> from the camera looks so much better? I understand why videos
>> appear sharper than viewing their individual frames would indicate,
>> but the JPGs viewed from both the camera and the CD are both static.
>> All I can think of is that the camera's video output bypasses much
>> of the TV's circuitry, but what isn't clear is why that circuitry
>> would degrade the signal so much.
>
> It's a function of the burning software for CDs.
> JPEGs on CDs need to be of a certain resolution because the CD/DVD
> reader won't read CDs except those that are burned with certain
> software characteristics.
> IOW, that's the way it is.

I know that we're at a particularly noteworthy calendar date, but
I didn't think it was April 1st. The same CDs that contain JPG
files that look horrible being displayed by DVD players look just
fine when read from a computer's CD/DVD player and viewed on the
computer's monitor. The jpg files were copied to the CD as data
files, and would be the same no matter what software was used. So
it's back to square one . . .