cant review pics

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Oct 24, 2006.

  1. 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, Oct 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Mr.Bolshoyhuy" <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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
     
    Pierre Vandevennne, Oct 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ASAAR Guest

    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, Oct 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    John Turco Guest

    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 <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 31, 2006
    #4
  5. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ASAAR Guest

    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?
     
    ASAAR, Oct 31, 2006
    #5
  6. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Bill Funk Guest

    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"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 31, 2006
    #6
  7. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
     
    ASAAR, Oct 31, 2006
    #7
  8. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Bill Funk Guest

    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, Oct 31, 2006
    #8
  9. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    bongo Guest

    "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?
     
    bongo, Oct 31, 2006
    #9
  10. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ASAAR Guest

    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 . . .
     
    ASAAR, Oct 31, 2006
    #10
  11. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Cgiorgio Guest

    "ASAAR" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > 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 . . .
    >


    It is probably just due to a DVD player with a lousy JPEG decoder function.
    Neither the camera nor the DVD player can show more than about 0.3 MPixels
    in a standard NTSC TV - Frame. Either device has to downsize high resolution
    digicam pictures to that resolution. If it plays well from DVD or SVCD , you
    can find software that converts .jpg still pictures into video. Compared to
    just storing files, it means wasting CD or DVD capacity. Some burning
    software packages include this function and there are also some specialized
    programs around like Ulead DVD picture show. You can add a soundtrack with
    these. If your DVD player is connected to the TV with a standard coax video
    cable (usually yellow RCA - jack) there is no difference in signal
    processing inside the TV to that of the camera. If it has an S - VHS lead or
    RGB - connection the video from the DVD player should be better than from
    the camera because of larger bandwidth.
     
    Cgiorgio, Oct 31, 2006
    #11
  12. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:09:47 +0100, Cgiorgio wrote:

    > It is probably just due to a DVD player with a lousy JPEG decoder function.
    > Neither the camera nor the DVD player can show more than about 0.3 MPixels
    > in a standard NTSC TV - Frame. Either device has to downsize high resolution
    > digicam pictures to that resolution. If it plays well from DVD or SVCD , you
    > can find software that converts .jpg still pictures into video.


    That would be a horrible solution, at least for my purposes. I'd
    just like to be able to give a CD containing many (hundreds) jpg
    images to relatives and friends, and if they were converted to
    video, it would be a lot of unnecessary work for me, and would also
    reduce the number of images per CD as well as prevent the recipients
    from copying the jpg files to their own computers (at least the ones
    that have computers) and possibly making their own prints. As I
    said in an earlier message, it may be that my cheapo DVD player is
    the problem, which you're in agreement with ("lousy JPEG decoder").
    I'll have to try out one of my CDs on the relative's players, since
    I'm the only one that has the cheap one. Now that I think of it, I
    have a couple of old combo VHS/DVD machines that are of much better
    quality, so I'll probably try them instead.
     
    ASAAR, Oct 31, 2006
    #12
  13. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:51:39 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:

    >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 . . .


    No joke; what you're seeing is the CD/DVD player changing he JPEGs
    because TVs are only 740x480, and CDs aren't DVDs, and TVs aren't
    computers.
    Try it. Oh, wait, you already have, and have noticed the problem.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 31, 2006
    #13
  14. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:03:33 GMT, " bongo"
    <_no> wrote:

    >
    >"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?


    Your computer doesn't use a set-top reader, nor is it a TV.
    Why argue? Try it.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 31, 2006
    #14
  15. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:29:38 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:09:47 +0100, Cgiorgio wrote:
    >
    >> It is probably just due to a DVD player with a lousy JPEG decoder function.
    >> Neither the camera nor the DVD player can show more than about 0.3 MPixels
    >> in a standard NTSC TV - Frame. Either device has to downsize high resolution
    >> digicam pictures to that resolution. If it plays well from DVD or SVCD , you
    >> can find software that converts .jpg still pictures into video.

    >
    > That would be a horrible solution, at least for my purposes. I'd
    >just like to be able to give a CD containing many (hundreds) jpg
    >images to relatives and friends, and if they were converted to
    >video, it would be a lot of unnecessary work for me, and would also
    >reduce the number of images per CD as well as prevent the recipients
    >from copying the jpg files to their own computers (at least the ones
    >that have computers) and possibly making their own prints. As I
    >said in an earlier message, it may be that my cheapo DVD player is
    >the problem, which you're in agreement with ("lousy JPEG decoder").
    >I'll have to try out one of my CDs on the relative's players, since
    >I'm the only one that has the cheap one. Now that I think of it, I
    >have a couple of old combo VHS/DVD machines that are of much better
    >quality, so I'll probably try them instead.


    Your DVD player is only part of the problem; the other part is that
    CDs are old technology, and JPEGS play from them rotten.
    A new DVD player will do the same thing.
    Try burning the pics to a DVD.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 31, 2006
    #15
  16. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    >

    Mainly because standard NTSC video is only about 330x525, which is FAR
    worse than most computers (or cameras) display, AND it is raster scanned
    at 1/30 second intervals with half the picture interspersed with the
    previous 1/30 second scan. This makes for acceptable video, but truly
    terrible still pictures. HD TVs will do a much better job, but not
    nearly as good as a monitor with 1024/768 display.
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 1, 2006
    #16
  17. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:33:25 -0600, Ron Hunter 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.

    >
    > Mainly because standard NTSC video is only about 330x525, which is FAR
    > worse than most computers (or cameras) display, AND it is raster scanned
    > at 1/30 second intervals with half the picture interspersed with the
    > previous 1/30 second scan. This makes for acceptable video, but truly
    > terrible still pictures. HD TVs will do a much better job, but not
    > nearly as good as a monitor with 1024/768 display.


    I think we're out of sych. or have some other failure
    communicating. I'm NOT talking about a comparison between how the
    JPGs look when viewed on a TV screen vs. when a computer's monitor
    is used. In both cases the JPGs are viewed on a TV screen. The
    difference is the source of the video. When the camera is hooked
    up to the TV, the JPGs look good. Not nearly as good as they will
    appear when viewed on a computer's monitor, but decent. When the
    same JPGs were burned onto a CD and placed into a DVD player which
    was connected to the same TV, they looked much worse. The camera
    and DVD player were connected to the TV the same way, to the TV's
    input that used 3 RCA plugs (L+R audio & Video).
     
    ASAAR, Nov 1, 2006
    #17
  18. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    keith_nuttle Guest

    I think the answer is still the same with the explanation slightly
    different. I do not know the type of TV you have but some of the new
    units have high definition inputs. (Our new TV has several types of
    high definition inputs)

    When you hook the camera directly to the TV, your camera may be making
    the connection through one of the high definition ports.

    While, unless you have a new and currently relatively expensive units,
    the CD system is only capable of the low definition output. Most CD
    today are recorded in a low definition signal for the current TV
    systems, so the high definition output from the CD system is not needed.


    ASAAR wrote:

    > On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:33:25 -0600, Ron Hunter 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.

    >>
    >>Mainly because standard NTSC video is only about 330x525, which is FAR
    >>worse than most computers (or cameras) display, AND it is raster scanned
    >>at 1/30 second intervals with half the picture interspersed with the
    >>previous 1/30 second scan. This makes for acceptable video, but truly
    >>terrible still pictures. HD TVs will do a much better job, but not
    >>nearly as good as a monitor with 1024/768 display.

    >
    >
    > I think we're out of sych. or have some other failure
    > communicating. I'm NOT talking about a comparison between how the
    > JPGs look when viewed on a TV screen vs. when a computer's monitor
    > is used. In both cases the JPGs are viewed on a TV screen. The
    > difference is the source of the video. When the camera is hooked
    > up to the TV, the JPGs look good. Not nearly as good as they will
    > appear when viewed on a computer's monitor, but decent. When the
    > same JPGs were burned onto a CD and placed into a DVD player which
    > was connected to the same TV, they looked much worse. The camera
    > and DVD player were connected to the TV the same way, to the TV's
    > input that used 3 RCA plugs (L+R audio & Video).
    >
     
    keith_nuttle, Nov 1, 2006
    #18
  19. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    John Turco Guest

    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?



    Hello, ASAAR:

    Okay, I just copied a batch of about 207 digicam pics (with a few
    flatbed scans, thrown in), to a DVD-RAM disc. The DMR-ES45V handled them
    beautifully, just as did those on the SD card (which had already been
    deleted, incidentally).

    Of course, with the HT30744 being a high-definition television set,
    what else should one expect? HDMI is a digital connection, unlike the
    different analog ones (component, S-Video and composite).


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Nov 4, 2006
    #19
  20. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    John Turco Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    <edited, for brevity>

    > Mainly because standard NTSC video is only about 330x525, which is FAR
    > worse than most computers (or cameras) display, AND it is raster scanned
    > at 1/30 second intervals with half the picture interspersed with the
    > previous 1/30 second scan. This makes for acceptable video, but truly
    > terrible still pictures. HD TVs will do a much better job, but not
    > nearly as good as a monitor with 1024/768 display.



    Hello, Ron:

    Well, lately, I've been pleasantly surprised by my Sanyo HT30744. It's
    a 30" widescreen, high-definition TV set (CRT); and utilizing its HDMI
    input, digicam images are quite dazzling, when played by my Panasonic
    DMR-ES45V (which is a VHS/DVD combination recorder, with HDMI output).

    I'd even go as far as to say the Sanyo's 720p/1080i resolution, begins
    to rival the 1024x768 of my CTX PL9 computer monitor (19" CRT, .026mm
    dot pitch), in this particular application.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Nov 4, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jason Hogan

    pics no pics

    Jason Hogan, Feb 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    568
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Feb 1, 2004
  2. Jessica

    Camcorder still pics vs digcam pics

    Jessica, Sep 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,934
    Jessica
    Sep 26, 2003
  3. John Corbett

    512MB CF 69 pics, 256Mb xD 71 pics??

    John Corbett, Oct 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,008
    Jerry
    Nov 1, 2003
  4. unclejesse01

    man i cant belive i cant get help please

    unclejesse01, Apr 9, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    370
    Bill Vermillion
    Apr 14, 2005
  5. Hellenic Mensa
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    449
    John McWilliams
    Aug 30, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page