Kodak DX6340 jpg size very small at max res.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aussieworker, Dec 29, 2004.

  1. aussieworker

    aussieworker Guest

    Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
    The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little puzzled
    as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.

    I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
    Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.

    Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

    Regards,
    Tony
     
    aussieworker, Dec 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony,

    I have the same camera and with the resolution set to maximum (which is
    3.2MP, not 4) I have noticed that file size varies. Some pics are less than
    1MB, but some are larger than 1MB. I haven't figured out why this is yet.
    Quality seems the same. I have to
    look into this. I wonder, would pics taken vertically be different than
    horizontals in terms of file size?

    Mike

    "aussieworker" <> wrote in message
    news:41d3275c$0$20070$...
    >
    > Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
    > The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little

    puzzled
    > as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
    >
    > I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
    > Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
    >
    > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Tony
    >
    >
     
    Michael Colavito, Dec 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. aussieworker

    Ben Thomas Guest

    aussieworker wrote:
    > Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
    > The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little puzzled
    > as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
    >
    > I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
    > Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
    >
    > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Tony
    >
    >


    I have the 4MP DX6490. Kodak uses "very clever" jpeg compression algorithm which
    usually results in 500k file sizes. Occasionally I get 1.5MB files when there
    isn't much sky or grass.

    IMHO they overcompress sky, grass, and even skin tones if you're doing a
    close-up portrait.

    If you take a landscape with a lot of detail the compression is much less.

    --
    --
    Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

    My Digital World:
    Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
    Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
    Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
    Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

    Disclaimer:
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
     
    Ben Thomas, Dec 29, 2004
    #3
  4. aussieworker

    Ron Hunter Guest

    aussieworker wrote:
    > Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
    > The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little puzzled
    > as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
    >
    > I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
    > Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
    >
    > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Tony
    >
    >

    Kodak has a rather aggressive cimpression. It is not usually a problem,
    but I wish yhey had an option for less compression.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 30, 2004
    #4
  5. aussieworker

    Amyotte Guest


    > I have the same camera and with the resolution set to maximum (which is
    > 3.2MP, not 4) I have noticed that file size varies. Some pics are less
    > than
    > 1MB, but some are larger than 1MB. I haven't figured out why this is yet.


    The amount of light and color increase the file size. When I take an astro
    picture with my telescope the file size is very small. Example a moon
    picture is under 200k and Saturn is about 50k.

    Brian
     
    Amyotte, Dec 30, 2004
    #5
  6. aussieworker

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings Tony,

    Actually, the compression used in Kodak cameras is quite sophisticated and
    designed to work extremely well in the EasyShare cameras. You will be
    pleased with your results. Also, the file size is related to the content of
    the image and the resolution at which you are viewing it. For instance, If
    you were to go into a novelty shop that had many displays and such along
    with multicolored quilts etc. you would find the file size is larger. On
    the other hand, if you were to take a picture of a field and sky, the image
    file would be smaller. The content and how the image is processed makes the
    difference.

    I have purchased your model for friends who love the images and believe them
    to be extremely good. Also, if you are opening the images in EasyShare
    software you can see the resolution setting and such when you change it you
    will see the file shift up and down based on the chosen resolution or print
    size.

    Try going to the Ofoto site and having a print made. If you have not yet
    visited them you can get some free prints by which you can judge quality.

    Talk to you soon, Tony,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company




    "aussieworker" <> wrote in message
    news:41d3275c$0$20070$...
    >
    > Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
    > The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little

    puzzled
    > as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
    >
    > I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
    > Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
    >
    > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Tony
    >
    >
     
    Ron Baird, Jan 3, 2005
    #6
  7. aussieworker

    Jürgen Eidt Guest

    "Ron Baird" <> schrieb
    > Actually, the compression used in Kodak cameras is quite sophisticated and
    > designed to work extremely well in the EasyShare cameras. You will be
    > pleased with your results.

    ;)
    Since its difficult to get to this data, are you using a different quality
    level for the Y and C channels?
    Most cameras apply the same scaling for all channels but having a higher
    quality for luminance channel than for the chrominance channel is quite
    efficient.
    I'm using this for web pictures using the new JPEG features and if you don't
    print them it looks really good.

    --
    Regards
    Jürgen
    http://cpicture.de/en
     
    Jürgen Eidt, Jan 3, 2005
    #7
    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. eng

    Kodak DX4530 or Kodak DX6340??????

    eng, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,154
  2. Ian Roberts

    Why are my max res jpgs read as 75dpi?

    Ian Roberts, Dec 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    468
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Dec 16, 2004
  3. Louise

    Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

    Louise, Mar 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    614
    Bill Tuthill
    Mar 30, 2005
  4. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    516
    David J Taylor
    Feb 2, 2007
  5. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    7,505
    Ron Baird
    Feb 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page