Quality file formats on normal budgets

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Morgan Ohlson, Nov 26, 2003.

  1. New subject above: "Quality file formats on a budget"

    If a person knows that he whants 2Mb pictures. Knowing that he need to take
    ~60pictures in 1x 128Mb-card.

    Should He then choose a camera that produce
    a) 2Mb tiffs ...or
    b) 2Mb jpg's

    What I'm after here is that probably the great majority have limited
    budgets... but still care about quality.

    Jpeg are not the ultimat cyber quality, but who affords that IRL?

    IRL it's actually always a fact that quality is reduced by limited $, ?,
    weight, size or something else. It's extremely rare that quality is the
    stand-alone trait.
    ....and when it is.... what is really quality? (colors, resolution, haze
    penetration, speed, minimum noise, lite cam....etc.)

    No character or feature can ever stand completely alone!


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Morgan Ohlson

    Trev Guest

    Tiff would be a lot bigger then a jpeg for the same image size. Though
    jpeg is losey so you lose some detail at fine setting's you will still
    get better prints then your average high st. quickie snap make from
    film. just don't keep compounding the errors.

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in message
    news:ayZwb.35369$...
    > New subject above: "Quality file formats on a budget"
    >
    > If a person knows that he whants 2Mb pictures. Knowing that he need

    to take
    > ~60pictures in 1x 128Mb-card.
    >
    > Should He then choose a camera that produce
    > a) 2Mb tiffs ...or
    > b) 2Mb jpg's
    >
    > What I'm after here is that probably the great majority have limited
    > budgets... but still care about quality.
    >
    > Jpeg are not the ultimat cyber quality, but who affords that IRL?
    >
    > IRL it's actually always a fact that quality is reduced by limited $,

    ?,
    > weight, size or something else. It's extremely rare that quality is

    the
    > stand-alone trait.
    > ...and when it is.... what is really quality? (colors, resolution,

    haze
    > penetration, speed, minimum noise, lite cam....etc.)
    >
    > No character or feature can ever stand completely alone!
    >
    >
    > Morgan O.
    >
    >
     
    Trev, Nov 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Trev" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > Tiff would be a lot bigger then a jpeg for the same image size. Though
    > jpeg is losey so you lose some detail at fine setting's you will still
    > get better prints then your average high st. quickie snap make from
    > film. just don't keep compounding the errors.
    >
    > "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in message
    > news:ayZwb.35369$...
    > > New subject above: "Quality file formats on a budget"
    > >
    > > If a person knows that he whants 2Mb pictures. Knowing that he need

    > to take
    > > ~60pictures in 1x 128Mb-card.
    > >
    > > Should He then choose a camera that produce
    > > a) 2Mb tiffs ...or
    > > b) 2Mb jpg's
    > >
    > > What I'm after here is that probably the great majority have limited
    > > budgets... but still care about quality.
    > >
    > > Jpeg are not the ultimat cyber quality, but who affords that IRL?
    > >
    > > IRL it's actually always a fact that quality is reduced by limited $,

    > ?,
    > > weight, size or something else. It's extremely rare that quality is

    > the
    > > stand-alone trait.
    > > ...and when it is.... what is really quality? (colors, resolution,

    > haze
    > > penetration, speed, minimum noise, lite cam....etc.)
    > >
    > > No character or feature can ever stand completely alone!



    That would mean thet a 2Mb TIFF has considerably lower resolution compared
    to a jpg of the same size?

    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 26, 2003
    #3
  4. Morgan Ohlson

    gr Guest

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote
    > New subject above: "Quality file formats on a budget"
    >
    > If a person knows that he whants 2Mb pictures. Knowing that he need to

    take
    > ~60pictures in 1x 128Mb-card.
    >
    > Should He then choose a camera that produce
    > a) 2Mb tiffs ...or
    > b) 2Mb jpg's


    2 MB Jpegs... no doubt about it. A 2 MB TIFF file will be produced from a
    0.6 MP camera, a resolution of about 950x700. That's crappy quality for
    anything except Web pictures or wallet-sized prints.

    A 2 MP Jpeg file can be produced from a 5 or 6 MP camera or even more,
    depending on the compression used. That will give you excellent quality for
    8x10" prints, even with the Jpeg compression.
     
    gr, Nov 26, 2003
    #4
  5. Morgan Ohlson wrote:
    > That would mean thet a 2Mb TIFF has considerably lower resolution compared
    > to a jpg of the same size?


    As an example my 6MP D100 creates JPG images that are 2-3MB in size. If
    I was using TIFF they would all be 18MB. They are the same resolution,
    3000x2000 but the TIFF is not compressed at all. JPG is compressed
    using what's called "lossy" compression. This means that there is an
    algorithm that throws away data that should not affect the quality of
    the picture. It works pretty well in most instances.

    As the other poster said, a 2MB TIFF would be a very small image indeed,
    not suitable for much but web use or emailing.
     
    Andrew McDonald, Nov 26, 2003
    #5
  6. "Andrew McDonald" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:n22xb.18122$...
    > Morgan Ohlson wrote:
    > > That would mean thet a 2Mb TIFF has considerably lower resolution

    compared
    > > to a jpg of the same size?

    >
    > As an example my 6MP D100 creates JPG images that are 2-3MB in size. If
    > I was using TIFF they would all be 18MB. They are the same resolution,
    > 3000x2000 but the TIFF is not compressed at all. JPG is compressed
    > using what's called "lossy" compression. This means that there is an
    > algorithm that throws away data that should not affect the quality of
    > the picture. It works pretty well in most instances.
    >
    > As the other poster said, a 2MB TIFF would be a very small image indeed,
    > not suitable for much but web use or emailing.


    So many people talking about best formats and criticise jpeg...

    perhaps it's time to "give thanks" for jpeg-format that makes large size
    (and according resolution) possible combined with normal memory cards, and
    normal budgets!?


    Morgan O.
     
    Morgan Ohlson, Nov 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Morgan Ohlson wrote:
    > "Andrew McDonald" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:n22xb.18122$...
    >
    >>Morgan Ohlson wrote:
    >>
    >>>That would mean thet a 2Mb TIFF has considerably lower resolution

    >
    > compared
    >
    >>>to a jpg of the same size?

    >>
    >>As an example my 6MP D100 creates JPG images that are 2-3MB in size. If
    >>I was using TIFF they would all be 18MB. They are the same resolution,
    >>3000x2000 but the TIFF is not compressed at all. JPG is compressed
    >>using what's called "lossy" compression. This means that there is an
    >>algorithm that throws away data that should not affect the quality of
    >>the picture. It works pretty well in most instances.
    >>
    >>As the other poster said, a 2MB TIFF would be a very small image indeed,
    >>not suitable for much but web use or emailing.

    >
    >
    > So many people talking about best formats and criticise jpeg...
    >
    > perhaps it's time to "give thanks" for jpeg-format that makes large size
    > (and according resolution) possible combined with normal memory cards, and
    > normal budgets!?


    JPG is fine for most of the stuff I do, pictures of our horses, kids,
    holiday events. I save RAW (even better format than TIFF) for the
    important stuff like my last vacation.

    RAW is the unaltered data directly from the camera CCD. Absolutely
    nothing is done to it until you get to the PC at which point you can
    make decisions about exposure compensation, sharpening and contrast,
    even white balance. It's a great format but I think it's too much extra
    work for day to day shots.
     
    Andrew McDonald, Nov 27, 2003
    #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. Nick Worley

    Standard file formats?

    Nick Worley, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    549
    Boomer
    Sep 20, 2003
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,119
    Allan
    Jul 15, 2005
  3. Au79
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    992
    robis
    Dec 15, 2007
  4. Jonathan Walker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    584
    Peter
    Aug 26, 2007
  5. helena68
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,481
    popularscan
    Nov 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page