Kodak JPEG Compression

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by TheChair, Dec 7, 2003.

  1. TheChair

    TheChair Guest

    I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    the better examples, this from a CNET review:

    http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?tag=subnav

    It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.

    I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.
     
    TheChair, Dec 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. TheChair

    Ron Hunter Guest

    TheChair wrote:

    > I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    > MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    > quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    > the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    > Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    > artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    > the better examples, this from a CNET review:


    They are full of crap. Kodak has excellent compression. You can look
    at a few hundered of my 2 mp shots at www.webshots.com rphunter42.
    Decide for yourself, remembering that the pictures are compressed by the
    camera, and then further compressed by webshots, but you take a look at
    them and see if you agree with CNET.

    >
    > http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?tag=subnav
    >
    > It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    > and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    > although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    >
    > I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    > upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    > are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    > probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    > criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.


    Look at the full size images in the reviews, NOT at the samples in
    thumbnail, and decide for yourself.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. TheChair

    Peter Jones Guest

    On 7 Dec 2003 08:04:21 -0800, (TheChair)
    wrote:

    >I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    >MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    >quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    >the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    >Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    >artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    >the better examples, this from a CNET review:
    >
    >http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?tag=subnav
    >
    >It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    >and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    >although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    >
    >I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    >upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    >are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    >probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    >criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.


    I wouldn't place much weight in CNet's reviews, they're very
    superficial. Look at:

    http://www.imaging-resource.com
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html
    http://www.dpreview.com - and look at user opinions here.

    Peter
    Digital Photography Reference
    http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/PJDigPhot.htm
    Touchup, an image viewing applet (also shows EXIF)
    http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/software.htm
    Health, happiness and healing
    http://www.SuperNaturalWoman.com
     
    Peter Jones, Dec 7, 2003
    #3
  4. TheChair

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <>,
    h says...
    > On 7 Dec 2003 08:04:21 -0800, (TheChair)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    > >MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    > >quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    > >the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    > >Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    > >artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    > >the better examples, this from a CNET review:
    > >
    > >http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?tag=subnav
    > >
    > >It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    > >and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    > >although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    > >
    > >I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    > >upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    > >are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    > >probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    > >criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.

    >
    > I wouldn't place much weight in CNet's reviews, they're very
    > superficial. Look at:
    >
    > http://www.imaging-resource.com
    > http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html
    > http://www.dpreview.com - and look at user opinions here.
    >
    > Peter
    > Digital Photography Reference
    > http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/PJDigPhot.htm
    > Touchup, an image viewing applet (also shows EXIF)
    > http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/software.htm
    > Health, happiness and healing
    > http://www.SuperNaturalWoman.com
    >


    I have the Kodak 4350 and I had the 4mp Kodak before it,
    and I like 'em BOTH.. What got my attention was the
    Ektachrome-like color (which is pointed out in Steves
    review).
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Dec 7, 2003
    #4
  5. TheChair

    TheChair Guest

    I was afraid if I cited CNET you would assume I relied only on that.
    Of course I did not. I only used the CNET link for its actual
    demonstration of the issue. I came to my conclusion after reading all
    the reputable reviews in English and viewing hundreds of online photos
    on PBASE and elsewhere.

    Imaging Resource on the 6340:

    "Resolution seems to be the DX6340's weak point, as it showed
    noticeably less detail in its shots of the "laboratory" resolution
    test chart than most three megapixel models I've tested, only about
    950 lines per picture height, compared to 1,100 or more for competing
    models. It will still produce good-looking 8x10 prints, but if you're
    a resolution fanatic, you'd do better with a competing model. In the
    resolution test, the 6340 began showing artifacts at resolution levels
    as low as 600 lines, I found "strong detail" to about 950 lines, and
    "extinction" of the target patterns occurred at between 1,100 and
    1,200 lines."

    DCResource on the 6440's night scene test:

    "May I present San Francisco by Monet. I don't know what's going on
    here, but the night shot was processed to death, possibly by the noise
    reduction system. It's a shame too, as the camera took in plenty of
    light. There's a bit of purple fringing, as well." [My note: I don't
    think it's the noise reduction system!]; and

    "What I didn't care for:

    "Details in photos can look muddy, overprocessed"

    From DPreview.com, check out this link from a thread on someone's
    decision between the 6330 and 6340. It was his first photo from the
    6340. Ignoring the purple fringing, check out the little boy's eye
    sockets.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1011&message=6873061

    From megapixel.net on the 6440:

    "However, as the compression used at the best image quality is quite
    strong, some of the details of this intricate subject are a bit
    blurred. . . Still, as with the wide angle shot, the edges of the
    letter show some artefacts from the compression."

    And the list goes on. I'm a DRebel owner but I darned near wasn't. I
    came this close to buying a 6490 and calling it a day because of its
    nice, long lens. I knew if I got a Rebel I'd have to spend more $$ on
    lenses, and that's what's happening. But questions about compression
    and artifacts with no recognition by Kodak of the issue. Now I'm
    considering one of these models for my wife, a snapshooter like I
    said. I want to like them and only posted this negative issue to see
    if anyone out there (Mr. Baird??) could say whether the issue might be
    addressed. In fact, I already bought a 6330 for her. It awaits
    wrapping, but doubts linger. The other possibilities are the Minolta
    Xt and the Canon SD100 or S230. The latter are tiny purse-cams, but I
    was willing to go larger for the better feature set and
    hyper-simplicity. Besides the fantastic color, Kodak really
    understands simplicity. Now if they could just raise the image quality
    to the level of the decent lenses they use...
     
    TheChair, Dec 8, 2003
    #5
  6. TheChair

    Ron Hunter Guest

    TheChair wrote:

    > I was afraid if I cited CNET you would assume I relied only on that.
    > Of course I did not. I only used the CNET link for its actual
    > demonstration of the issue. I came to my conclusion after reading all
    > the reputable reviews in English and viewing hundreds of online photos
    > on PBASE and elsewhere.
    >
    > Imaging Resource on the 6340:
    >
    > "Resolution seems to be the DX6340's weak point, as it showed
    > noticeably less detail in its shots of the "laboratory" resolution
    > test chart than most three megapixel models I've tested, only about
    > 950 lines per picture height, compared to 1,100 or more for competing
    > models. It will still produce good-looking 8x10 prints, but if you're
    > a resolution fanatic, you'd do better with a competing model. In the
    > resolution test, the 6340 began showing artifacts at resolution levels
    > as low as 600 lines, I found "strong detail" to about 950 lines, and
    > "extinction" of the target patterns occurred at between 1,100 and
    > 1,200 lines."
    >
    > DCResource on the 6440's night scene test:
    >
    > "May I present San Francisco by Monet. I don't know what's going on
    > here, but the night shot was processed to death, possibly by the noise
    > reduction system. It's a shame too, as the camera took in plenty of
    > light. There's a bit of purple fringing, as well." [My note: I don't
    > think it's the noise reduction system!]; and
    >
    > "What I didn't care for:
    >
    > "Details in photos can look muddy, overprocessed"
    >
    > From DPreview.com, check out this link from a thread on someone's
    > decision between the 6330 and 6340. It was his first photo from the
    > 6340. Ignoring the purple fringing, check out the little boy's eye
    > sockets.
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1011&message=6873061
    >
    > From megapixel.net on the 6440:
    >
    > "However, as the compression used at the best image quality is quite
    > strong, some of the details of this intricate subject are a bit
    > blurred. . . Still, as with the wide angle shot, the edges of the
    > letter show some artefacts from the compression."
    >
    > And the list goes on. I'm a DRebel owner but I darned near wasn't. I
    > came this close to buying a 6490 and calling it a day because of its
    > nice, long lens. I knew if I got a Rebel I'd have to spend more $$ on
    > lenses, and that's what's happening. But questions about compression
    > and artifacts with no recognition by Kodak of the issue. Now I'm
    > considering one of these models for my wife, a snapshooter like I
    > said. I want to like them and only posted this negative issue to see
    > if anyone out there (Mr. Baird??) could say whether the issue might be
    > addressed. In fact, I already bought a 6330 for her. It awaits
    > wrapping, but doubts linger. The other possibilities are the Minolta
    > Xt and the Canon SD100 or S230. The latter are tiny purse-cams, but I
    > was willing to go larger for the better feature set and
    > hyper-simplicity. Besides the fantastic color, Kodak really
    > understands simplicity. Now if they could just raise the image quality
    > to the level of the decent lenses they use...


    I think that unless your wife if prone to greatly magnify the pictures
    on the screen, she will never notice any artifacting, or purple
    fringing, and will be very happy with the photographs delivered by the 6330.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 8, 2003
    #6
  7. TheChair

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings Chair,

    Sorry to hear about your experience. Actually, the compression for Kodak
    cameras is what it has been for a while 1:5. I can also assure you that the
    algorithm that Kodak uses is the result of some very skilled programmers and
    mathemeticians. One of the things that Kodak does and has for more than a
    century is understand and implement color quality. I the last few years,
    this has come over to computing, software, and now digital cameras. We used
    superior color quality in our professional cameras starting during the Gulf
    War of more than a decade ago, and currently in our most recent general
    digital cameras.

    The point of this post is to assure you that the technology that we have
    gleaned from all of that experience is in our products, including the latest
    Kodak Digital Cameras. It is excellent.

    I am also here and will be glad to review any images you might want to send
    from a Kodak digital camera that includes the details of exposure. Since I
    have been in the imaging business for 42 working years, I have yet to see
    any better. I would not committ to that if I did not believe it. Don't be
    afraid to try a Kodak camera, you will be well pleased, even the lesser
    expensive models (only lower in price due to fewer features). The same
    quality color technology is used in them as well.

    Talk to you soon, Chair, enjoy the holidays.

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    "TheChair" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    > MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    > quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    > the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    > Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    > artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    > the better examples, this from a CNET review:
    >
    >

    http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?t
    ag=subnav
    >
    > It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    > and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    > although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    >
    > I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    > upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    > are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    > probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    > criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.
     
    Ron Baird, Dec 8, 2003
    #7
  8. TheChair

    phillean Guest

    Ron

    I have read many of your posts in the past and have noted their sense, but
    this time I agree with the people who are asking for more user control eg to
    set less compression and less sharpening.

    I bought a dx6440 and am very happy with many of its features, but sometimes
    the extra sharpening an high compression does not leave any room for later
    adjustments.

    I understand the ready to print and ready to share philosophy behind the
    Kodak approach, but since Kodak set up such an easy to use firmare upgrade
    path it seems strange that a couple more options are not included for users
    who want them.

    philip lean

    phillean at netspeed dot com dot au

    "Ron Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:br2okb$g0j$...
    > Greetings Chair,
    >
    > Sorry to hear about your experience. Actually, the compression for Kodak
    > cameras is what it has been for a while 1:5. I can also assure you that

    the
    > algorithm that Kodak uses is the result of some very skilled programmers

    and
    > mathemeticians. One of the things that Kodak does and has for more than a
    > century is understand and implement color quality. I the last few years,
    > this has come over to computing, software, and now digital cameras. We

    used
    > superior color quality in our professional cameras starting during the

    Gulf
    > War of more than a decade ago, and currently in our most recent general
    > digital cameras.
    >
    > The point of this post is to assure you that the technology that we have
    > gleaned from all of that experience is in our products, including the

    latest
    > Kodak Digital Cameras. It is excellent.
    >
    > I am also here and will be glad to review any images you might want to

    send
    > from a Kodak digital camera that includes the details of exposure. Since

    I
    > have been in the imaging business for 42 working years, I have yet to see
    > any better. I would not committ to that if I did not believe it. Don't

    be
    > afraid to try a Kodak camera, you will be well pleased, even the lesser
    > expensive models (only lower in price due to fewer features). The same
    > quality color technology is used in them as well.
    >
    > Talk to you soon, Chair, enjoy the holidays.
    >
    > Ron Baird
    > Eastman Kodak Company
    >
    >
    > "TheChair" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    > > MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    > > quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    > > the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    > > Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    > > artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    > > the better examples, this from a CNET review:
    > >
    > >

    >

    http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?t
    > ag=subnav
    > >
    > > It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    > > and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    > > although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    > >
    > > I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    > > upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    > > are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    > > probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    > > criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.

    >
    >
     
    phillean, Dec 9, 2003
    #8
  9. TheChair

    Ron Hunter Guest

    phillean wrote:

    > Ron
    >
    > I have read many of your posts in the past and have noted their sense, but
    > this time I agree with the people who are asking for more user control eg to
    > set less compression and less sharpening.
    >
    > I bought a dx6440 and am very happy with many of its features, but sometimes
    > the extra sharpening an high compression does not leave any room for later
    > adjustments.
    >
    > I understand the ready to print and ready to share philosophy behind the
    > Kodak approach, but since Kodak set up such an easy to use firmare upgrade
    > path it seems strange that a couple more options are not included for users
    > who want them.
    >
    > philip lean
    >
    > phillean at netspeed dot com dot au
    >
    > "Ron Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:br2okb$g0j$...
    >
    >>Greetings Chair,
    >>
    >>Sorry to hear about your experience. Actually, the compression for Kodak
    >>cameras is what it has been for a while 1:5. I can also assure you that

    >
    > the
    >
    >>algorithm that Kodak uses is the result of some very skilled programmers

    >
    > and
    >
    >>mathemeticians. One of the things that Kodak does and has for more than a
    >>century is understand and implement color quality. I the last few years,
    >>this has come over to computing, software, and now digital cameras. We

    >
    > used
    >
    >>superior color quality in our professional cameras starting during the

    >
    > Gulf
    >
    >>War of more than a decade ago, and currently in our most recent general
    >>digital cameras.
    >>
    >>The point of this post is to assure you that the technology that we have
    >>gleaned from all of that experience is in our products, including the

    >
    > latest
    >
    >>Kodak Digital Cameras. It is excellent.
    >>
    >>I am also here and will be glad to review any images you might want to

    >
    > send
    >
    >>from a Kodak digital camera that includes the details of exposure. Since

    >
    > I
    >
    >>have been in the imaging business for 42 working years, I have yet to see
    >>any better. I would not committ to that if I did not believe it. Don't

    >
    > be
    >
    >>afraid to try a Kodak camera, you will be well pleased, even the lesser
    >>expensive models (only lower in price due to fewer features). The same
    >>quality color technology is used in them as well.
    >>
    >>Talk to you soon, Chair, enjoy the holidays.
    >>
    >>Ron Baird
    >>Eastman Kodak Company
    >>
    >>
    >>"TheChair" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    >>>MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    >>>quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    >>>the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    >>>Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    >>>artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    >>>the better examples, this from a CNET review:
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    > http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?t
    >
    >>ag=subnav
    >>
    >>>It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    >>>and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    >>>although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    >>>
    >>>I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    >>>upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    >>>are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    >>>probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    >>>criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.

    >>
    >>

    >
    >

    Are we talking about the camera firmware, or the Easyshare software? I
    don't agree that the Kodak algorithm is rotten. Quite the opposite. I
    have seen enough sample pictures to know better, and the older firmware
    such as in my camera is at least as good. Unless one magnifies a
    picture to great extents, there is no artifacting problem with the Kodak
    compression algorithm. Sharpening I can't discuss since I rarely find
    need for it, and then it is don't on the computer.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 9, 2003
    #9
  10. TheChair

    phillean Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > phillean wrote:
    >
    > > Ron
    > >
    > > I have read many of your posts in the past and have noted their sense,

    but
    > > this time I agree with the people who are asking for more user control

    eg to
    > > set less compression and less sharpening.
    > >
    > > I bought a dx6440 and am very happy with many of its features, but

    sometimes
    > > the extra sharpening an high compression does not leave any room for

    later
    > > adjustments.
    > >
    > > I understand the ready to print and ready to share philosophy behind the
    > > Kodak approach, but since Kodak set up such an easy to use firmare

    upgrade
    > > path it seems strange that a couple more options are not included for

    users
    > > who want them.
    > >
    > > philip lean
    > >
    > > phillean at netspeed dot com dot au
    > >
    > > "Ron Baird" <> wrote in message
    > > news:br2okb$g0j$...
    > >
    > >>Greetings Chair,
    > >>
    > >>Sorry to hear about your experience. Actually, the compression for

    Kodak
    > >>cameras is what it has been for a while 1:5. I can also assure you that

    > >
    > > the
    > >
    > >>algorithm that Kodak uses is the result of some very skilled programmers

    > >
    > > and
    > >
    > >>mathemeticians. One of the things that Kodak does and has for more than

    a
    > >>century is understand and implement color quality. I the last few

    years,
    > >>this has come over to computing, software, and now digital cameras. We

    > >
    > > used
    > >
    > >>superior color quality in our professional cameras starting during the

    > >
    > > Gulf
    > >
    > >>War of more than a decade ago, and currently in our most recent general
    > >>digital cameras.
    > >>
    > >>The point of this post is to assure you that the technology that we have
    > >>gleaned from all of that experience is in our products, including the

    > >
    > > latest
    > >
    > >>Kodak Digital Cameras. It is excellent.
    > >>
    > >>I am also here and will be glad to review any images you might want to

    > >
    > > send
    > >
    > >>from a Kodak digital camera that includes the details of exposure.

    Since
    > >
    > > I
    > >
    > >>have been in the imaging business for 42 working years, I have yet to

    see
    > >>any better. I would not committ to that if I did not believe it. Don't

    > >
    > > be
    > >
    > >>afraid to try a Kodak camera, you will be well pleased, even the lesser
    > >>expensive models (only lower in price due to fewer features). The same
    > >>quality color technology is used in them as well.
    > >>
    > >>Talk to you soon, Chair, enjoy the holidays.
    > >>
    > >>Ron Baird
    > >>Eastman Kodak Company
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>"TheChair" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>
    > >>>I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    > >>>MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    > >>>quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    > >>>the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    > >>>Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    > >>>artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    > >>>the better examples, this from a CNET review:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>

    > >

    http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?t
    > >
    > >>ag=subnav
    > >>
    > >>>It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    > >>>and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    > >>>although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    > >>>
    > >>>I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    > >>>upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    > >>>are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    > >>>probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    > >>>criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    > Are we talking about the camera firmware, or the Easyshare software? I
    > don't agree that the Kodak algorithm is rotten. Quite the opposite. I
    > have seen enough sample pictures to know better, and the older firmware
    > such as in my camera is at least as good. Unless one magnifies a
    > picture to great extents, there is no artifacting problem with the Kodak
    > compression algorithm. Sharpening I can't discuss since I rarely find
    > need for it, and then it is don't on the computer.


    I was referring to the firmware. I just upgraded firmware, a very easy
    process. Not sure if it has made any difference. But it did make me think
    that it would be possible to offer another set of firmware which has more
    than the usual options.

    I don't believe that the Kodak software (jpeg compression) is rotten, for
    many purposes it is good, but editing it is useful to have less sharpened
    and less compressed images as a starting point. I don't regard the easy
    share software as an editing tool, it is great for sharing and for quick
    emailing and quite good for viewing, but I have a range of other tools that
    I use for editing. I have recommended Kodak cameras to friends who want
    point and shoot and print or email good quality images. It is a hard choice
    at the moment whether to return my Kodak and buy the Canon A80 or S45 to get
    more flexibility and control, but then I would lose the Kodak quality lens.
     
    phillean, Dec 10, 2003
    #10
  11. TheChair

    Ron Hunter Guest

    phillean wrote:

    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>phillean wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Ron
    >>>
    >>>I have read many of your posts in the past and have noted their sense,

    >
    > but
    >
    >>>this time I agree with the people who are asking for more user control

    >
    > eg to
    >
    >>>set less compression and less sharpening.
    >>>
    >>>I bought a dx6440 and am very happy with many of its features, but

    >
    > sometimes
    >
    >>>the extra sharpening an high compression does not leave any room for

    >
    > later
    >
    >>>adjustments.
    >>>
    >>>I understand the ready to print and ready to share philosophy behind the
    >>>Kodak approach, but since Kodak set up such an easy to use firmare

    >
    > upgrade
    >
    >>>path it seems strange that a couple more options are not included for

    >
    > users
    >
    >>>who want them.
    >>>
    >>>philip lean
    >>>
    >>>phillean at netspeed dot com dot au
    >>>
    >>>"Ron Baird" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:br2okb$g0j$...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Greetings Chair,
    >>>>
    >>>>Sorry to hear about your experience. Actually, the compression for

    >
    > Kodak
    >
    >>>>cameras is what it has been for a while 1:5. I can also assure you that
    >>>
    >>>the
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>algorithm that Kodak uses is the result of some very skilled programmers
    >>>
    >>>and
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>mathemeticians. One of the things that Kodak does and has for more than

    >
    > a
    >
    >>>>century is understand and implement color quality. I the last few

    >
    > years,
    >
    >>>>this has come over to computing, software, and now digital cameras. We
    >>>
    >>>used
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>superior color quality in our professional cameras starting during the
    >>>
    >>>Gulf
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>War of more than a decade ago, and currently in our most recent general
    >>>>digital cameras.
    >>>>
    >>>>The point of this post is to assure you that the technology that we have
    >>>>gleaned from all of that experience is in our products, including the
    >>>
    >>>latest
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Kodak Digital Cameras. It is excellent.
    >>>>
    >>>>I am also here and will be glad to review any images you might want to
    >>>
    >>>send
    >>>
    >>>>from a Kodak digital camera that includes the details of exposure.

    >
    > Since
    >
    >>>I
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>have been in the imaging business for 42 working years, I have yet to

    >
    > see
    >
    >>>>any better. I would not committ to that if I did not believe it. Don't
    >>>
    >>>be
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>afraid to try a Kodak camera, you will be well pleased, even the lesser
    >>>>expensive models (only lower in price due to fewer features). The same
    >>>>quality color technology is used in them as well.
    >>>>
    >>>>Talk to you soon, Chair, enjoy the holidays.
    >>>>
    >>>>Ron Baird
    >>>>Eastman Kodak Company
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"TheChair" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I was about to give my wife a Kodak CX6330 (or CX 6340) snapshot 3.2
    >>>>>MP camera for Christmas, but thorough research tells me the image
    >>>>>quality is mediocre to bad, depending on the subject and lighting. All
    >>>>>the reputable camera review sites UNIFORMLY take points off much of
    >>>>>Kodak's digicam lineup for its excessive JPEG compression and
    >>>>>artifacts. It's not a myth... it's real and visible. Here's one of
    >>>>>the better examples, this from a CNET review:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>

    > http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?t
    >
    >>>>ag=subnav
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>It's a shame because the current Kodaks have excellent feature sets
    >>>>>and price, not to mention what appear to be nice, sharp lenses,
    >>>>>although what the lens giveth, the rotten algorithm taketh away.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I'd still stick with Kodak if there was some promise of a firmware
    >>>>>upgrade adding an "extra fine" option so we can see what the lenses
    >>>>>are capable of. But who knows what their corporate culture is. There's
    >>>>>probably some marketing vice-president who is busy suppressing
    >>>>>criticism of his lame decision to overcompress.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>Are we talking about the camera firmware, or the Easyshare software? I
    >>don't agree that the Kodak algorithm is rotten. Quite the opposite. I
    >>have seen enough sample pictures to know better, and the older firmware
    >>such as in my camera is at least as good. Unless one magnifies a
    >>picture to great extents, there is no artifacting problem with the Kodak
    >>compression algorithm. Sharpening I can't discuss since I rarely find
    >>need for it, and then it is don't on the computer.

    >
    >
    > I was referring to the firmware. I just upgraded firmware, a very easy
    > process. Not sure if it has made any difference. But it did make me think
    > that it would be possible to offer another set of firmware which has more
    > than the usual options.
    >
    > I don't believe that the Kodak software (jpeg compression) is rotten, for
    > many purposes it is good, but editing it is useful to have less sharpened
    > and less compressed images as a starting point. I don't regard the easy
    > share software as an editing tool, it is great for sharing and for quick
    > emailing and quite good for viewing, but I have a range of other tools that
    > I use for editing. I have recommended Kodak cameras to friends who want
    > point and shoot and print or email good quality images. It is a hard choice
    > at the moment whether to return my Kodak and buy the Canon A80 or S45 to get
    > more flexibility and control, but then I would lose the Kodak quality lens.
    >
    >

    It has been my experience that companies just fix bugs with firmware
    releases, rather than expanding functionality. Not sure why, but that
    is what I have seen.
    The only changes I would make to my camera are:
    Better LCD so I can see it in strong light (ie. daylight).
    More zoom. (only 2x on mine).
    More pixels. (there are never enough pixels).
    Smaller size. Won't fit in shirt pocket.

    LIke all purchases, the camera was a compromise between features, size,
    and price. I have been quite happy with the quality of pictures, and
    especially with the color accuracy.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 10, 2003
    #11
    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. Nicholas J. Coscoros

    JPEG Compression (Newbie Question)

    Nicholas J. Coscoros, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    538
    Bruce Chastain
    Jul 30, 2003
  2. Phillean
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    530
    ArtKramr
    Oct 4, 2003
  3. jriegle

    JPEG compression not the same?

    jriegle, Dec 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    557
    Andy Hewitt
    Dec 12, 2003
  4. Jean Nohain

    JPEG compression and the DX6490

    Jean Nohain, May 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    435
    Ron Hunter
    May 16, 2004
  5. Hap Shaughnessy

    Attn: Ron Baird - re: Kodak DX7630 high jpeg compression

    Hap Shaughnessy, Aug 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,505
    Martin Brown
    Aug 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page