Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Image Size and Compression.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Image Size and Compression.

 
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/30/2010 8:50 AM, Tim Conway wrote:

> And you don't have to be so damn rude.


He's trying to troll. The art of Usenet trolling has fallen quite a bit
in recent years, but then so has Usenet in general. Most of the
talented trolls have fled to message boards.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMUuddAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bh90H/2nJxB9EMZWNtmCXlYzv9wvw
TEweN+gSnQwopISzE0rp0/PP5XF+R1d6Vgvtl163Cm8WnFsQUGPf0fpGdPD7crhl
u04iiiollwCHfGHqp+fIw4QjlY/lFHh7rZY2bjGobrNKht5+xAkplbnG3g1H2mf/
eJqodJDCir3XDVGdurvEYSjqmvduv7A1gmD3ybkBiaYRpUy+Vi ouvcCgtVmTTBA7
OP3BJ42BMPBqplRwRtnH5jZiSPXOfeJrcuYQyXSyk2TcheqWBS 3WX0Wi3CPFJlqa
3ZfmUU49uHbYJLedlj5Vqfb4ZBSFQ+UF5vjY2mqDcqgfj6918J K6SwVQI5qBuMU=
=yB/A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2010

"Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4c52dc1e$0$5499$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
> "Tim Conway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:i2ulah$lpt$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>
>> "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:55 -0400, "Peter"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>>>>news:LridnROBwbkKVs_RnZ2dnUVZ8gKdnZ2d@brightvi ew.co.uk...
>>>>> Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For my money the higher resolution image using higher compression
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> almost always beat the lower resolution less compressed image. There
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be exceptions and unless you are absolutely certain you will never
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> the extra pixels or you are running out of media space there is
>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>> or no advantage in decreasing image size in the camera.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Martin Brown
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Showing how little you know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If using higher ISO's with more noise, it can be advantageous to use
>>>>>> in-camera downsampling. As this will average-out the noise from the
>>>>>> RAW
>>>>>> sensor data.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be more "advantageous" to retain the original data
>>>>> and use a superior noise reduction algorithm later.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can look up noise reduction algorithms on your own time
>>>>> if you think averaging is a good one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the only reason to answer it, is when, as above, it is spreading
>>>>misinformation. You are correct. It is not stating that most NR,
>>>>including
>>>>averaging, works on a principle of blurring. Therefore details will be
>>>>lost.
>>>
>>> Far less details lost in-camera direct from the sensor data than you
>>> will
>>> get by using the only available algorithm in PhotoSlop being sloppy
>>> last-century's bicubic.
>>>
>>> ****, are you ever an ignorant moron of a useless **** of a troll.
>>>

>> And you don't have to be so damn rude.
>>

>
>
> Oh yes it does. Part of it's sickness. That statement coming for it,
> should be taken as a compliment.
>

I know. I know. I just wanted to voice my discontent with it. You would
think that if he really did all those things he says he did in life, he
would also had learned some civility in dealing with fellow humans. I
suppose that's just part of his "sickness". I'm not paying attention to him
anymore.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2010
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010073009383611272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-07-30 09:02:22 -0700, "Tim Conway" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>


>
> As for the value of anything I might contribute regarding photography, or
> other personal opinions I have expressed, I try to limit that to equipment
> I own, or knowledge and experience I have gained over the years.
>


If everybody did that we would have far fewer posts, but the reliability of
the advice and the quality of postings would greatly increase. It might even
encourage others with real knowledge to contribute. I suspect that too many
are intimidated by the BS artists/ No. "BSers.


--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2010
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:08:38 -0400, "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>news:2010073009383611272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-07-30 09:02:22 -0700, "Tim Conway" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>

>
>>
>> As for the value of anything I might contribute regarding photography, or
>> other personal opinions I have expressed, I try to limit that to equipment
>> I own, or knowledge and experience I have gained over the years.
>>

>
>If everybody did that we would have far fewer posts, but the reliability of
>the advice and the quality of postings would greatly increase. It might even
>encourage others with real knowledge to contribute. I suspect that too many
>are intimidated by the BS artists/ No. "BSers.


You mean like yourself? BS-Artists? I've yet to see even ONE valid bit of
information come from you. You lousy ****ing pretend-photographer troll.

LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/30/2010 4:57 PM, LOL! wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:08:38 -0400, "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:


> You mean like yourself? BS-Artists? I've yet to see even ONE valid bit of
> information come from you. You lousy ****ing pretend-photographer troll.
>
> LOL!


Isn't trolling Usenet a little on the "outdated" side of things?

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMU282AAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bkIEH/jQh5YPClb1W0/ZtQyLzDIk2
HNhVsk4vj29bmtAmsqoEyvMoFwPZdt8f67vTXas1A+7b1xt2LX mGkcH/MUKvs/AS
YTc20oF0uSQMWEiuAq910W8OiLzV0D4YBi/y5WCZWaESrV2wLETVQf0MqFM8vRDu
6ik8SR7Oc8ctWJjSFPQj4WVZCVjJot/jXb16JfhPOq/QG6O6sy2iH+OMmZkxthcG
dbguIa7F0xnNMaoZzvCeJGZ0Lz/lMX7vu7HbjJcZnk7mOm6J1TzK5Gm54wCTks5W
Jo4JBAr5VK8tRrLrS83PgUS3BszjfqKBuOEDrKfQfAxSOMh4+e 2jYUs9elUOorc=
=fPjp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2010
Ryan McGinnis wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> << Snipped bits out >>
>
> Isn't trolling Usenet a little on the "outdated" side of things?


After several months, it moves from Trolling, to trolling, to pestilence.

Ryan-

No need to sign messages; forgers can fake PGP stuff easily, and no one
checks the origin on usenet anyway.

Also, a sig delimiter is
dash, dash, space, return; no more, no less.

--
Like that.

John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/30/2010 8:14 PM, John McWilliams wrote:

> Ryan-
>
> No need to sign messages; forgers can fake PGP stuff easily, and no one
> checks the origin on usenet anyway.
>
> Also, a sig delimiter is
> dash, dash, space, return; no more, no less.


My client auto-signs. (It's actually quite impossible to forge a PGP
signed message; it may look normal, but it won't decode as valid if you
run it through GPG / PGP. This assumes, of course, that you're
confident of the key that the person you're communicating with is
actually using.)

I think PGP messes with the sig delimiter in order to ensure that the
start and stop of the PGP is clear to the decoding software.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMU7q1AAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bJxQH/jSS5DKX2MT0Yq/Eryn/blhc
BWMd9JXiqlI4TyO5Mh7VhfZK3W4Z4e+xb0x9LGkHkbirOG8abq HjT6jpsZv7vPVM
WDD4ZMjc2E3zaImibbMGCyeJ7BHhDZandNNluo1GmPsB3PJwIq 4zciJ03ny/RdJV
K9CRogLIOmfCNNcUS5LeQJSqYusPqHwSmnBLlbmoXwr7mlb+4R M6Ws2GfonjcuGQ
p2lBnLh4FsNt0AsG7oG0zUD82/qzZxNOzy4zVJYqzTKBdFUlLFdz0w0l71ZDbFg6
zmJ8W8SXsMmfUzkUMyx06/NMEOnkw/8OyBhufDI5tSzJjJQmoyxcGWB8+JNcL0c=
=UfH2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2010
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:05:42 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:54:47 +0100, bugbear
: <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
:
: >Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:59:32 +0100, Martin Brown
: >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >>
: >>> For my money the higher resolution image using higher compression will
: >>> almost always beat the lower resolution less compressed image. There can
: >>> be exceptions and unless you are absolutely certain you will never need
: >>> the extra pixels or you are running out of media space there is little
: >>> or no advantage in decreasing image size in the camera.
: >>>
: >>> Regards,
: >>> Martin Brown
: >>
: >> Showing how little you know.
: >>
: >> If using higher ISO's with more noise, it can be advantageous to use
: >> in-camera downsampling. As this will average-out the noise from the RAW
: >> sensor data.
: >
: >It would be more "advantageous" to retain the original data
: >and use a superior noise reduction algorithm later.
: >
:
: Of course it would. But that was not the question nor possible answer. I
: purposely set all my cameras to lowest contrast (retains fullest dynamic
: range in the JPG output), lowest noise-reduction, and lowest sharpening
: settings so that I may do that better on the computer. If available (as in
: CHDK cameras) I will use a live-view RGB histogram to determine if any one
: or more of the color channels are also out of whack and will also adjust
: those accordingly so that one will not be blown-out before another.
:
: However, it can be even better to use a RAW-Averaging feature as is
: available in all CHDK P&S cameras' in-camera processing to provide
: completely noise-free images at ISO800, 1600, and higher.

Obviously the solution that leaves you the most options is to always shoot in
RAW mode, something few P&S camers support these days. I'm under the
impression that on at least some P&Ses, using CHDK enables the RAW data to be
captured on a camera that doesn't support it natively. Is that the case? If
so, does it apply to all CHDK cameras or just some of them?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2010
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:50:30 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:31:36 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >Obviously the solution that leaves you the most options is to always shoot in
: >RAW mode,
:
: Not true. It slows down frame rates if you have to shoot in burst modes.
: This could be a large hindrance to photography subject options. And many
: cameras do the JPG conversion properly in-camera so there is little to
: nothing to be gained from wasting your time tweaking RAW data. Quite the
: disappointment to many CHDK newbies who were all excited about getting the
: highly (but wrongly) acclaimed "RAW" access, only to find out there was so
: very little to gain by using RAW in these remarkable cameras that RAW is
: usually always a perfect waste of one's time. Outside of the in-camera RAW
: Avg and RAW SUM processes of CHDK's programming, I have found little to no
: use for RAW. I know how to properly expose and color-balance my images to
: begin with, where it counts, in the camera. I don't require the RAW crutch
: to save me from any capture disasters. Nor the more usual reason--people
: trying to compensate for what their cameras fail to do properly in the
: first place when converting to JPG. They need only ask themselves, "If I
: can easily convert to a decent JPG file that represents the whole dynamic
: range of my sensor by using my computer, why can't my camera do something
: so simple in the camera in the first place?" This usually makes it quite
: clear to themselves that they bought a piece of **** camera. They got what
: they paid for, right? A royal con job.
:
: I'd answer your question concerning the availability of RAW on all CHDK
: cameras, to which I do know the answer to that, but you've proved yourself
: to be a loathsome toad of a troll (wait, that insults toads which are quite
: nice animals), one who doesn't deserve to get any real help from me. And
: since having access to RAW is not all that important on CHDK cameras
: (excellent RAW to JPG already done in-camera), it really doesn't matter if
: these camera have RAW availability or not. Except for the occasionally
: useful things you can do with the RAW manipulation options in CHDK from
: within the camera itself. For example: shoot with RAW enabled, but set your
: shooting mode to B&W. Compose your scene in true B&W in the EVF/LCD. This
: spits out a B&W JPG. Then use the "RAW Develop" feature of CHDK to also
: spit out the full-color JPG as well; it matching whatever custom colors,
: sharpening, contrast, and other settings that you have set. Any settings
: you choose on the camera are now applied to the RAW file residing on the SD
: card. The camera using the in-camera RAW file as if it was capturing an
: image direct from the sensor all over again. Digital-zoom can even be used
: to crop the RAW image(file). Uses for a RAW file outside of the camera?
: There really aren't any. Since the camera can already do most everything
: you need to do with that RAW image(file).

I'm truly sorry to read all that gibberish, Outing, because I thought I'd seen
some evidence lately that you've been taking your meds and/or that your
headshrinker was starting to get through to you. Alas, I guess I was wrong.

Toad
 
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
Preferred Size, Minimum Size, Size Jason Cavett Java 5 05-25-2008 08:32 AM
Is there any way to know image size ? And truncate image? bluedolphin Javascript 1 04-10-2008 06:18 PM
mega pixels, file size, image size, and print size - Adobe Evangelists Frank ess Digital Photography 0 11-14-2006 05:08 PM
How to Shrink image size when browser size is reduced Bob Richardson Javascript 3 03-08-2005 06:37 AM
Bigger image size and lower quality vs. Smaller image size and higher quality Desmond Digital Photography 5 09-27-2003 04:08 AM



Advertisments