Re: Image Size and Compression.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Martin Brown, Jul 30, 2010.

  1. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 30/07/2010 09:25, bobwilliams wrote:
    > Let's assume I have a 10MP camera
    > My sensor is say, 3650 X 2740 pixels.
    > But say I want to create an image at 1825 x 1370 pixels.
    > How does the camera actually reduce the 5.0MPs to 2.5MPs
    > Does it choose groups of 4 pixels and somehow average them out to groups
    > of 1 pixel each?


    It does (or rather should do) something a little bit more sophisticated
    than a simple average. It has to low pass filter the image to downsample
    and avoid producing Moire fringe aliasing artefacts.

    > How does this process differ from compressing the 10MP image by a factor
    > of 4.


    Critically the top half of the high frequency components present in the
    orginal image are lost forever when you downsample to a half size one.
    The information content and size is reduced accordingly.

    > I know that in one case the image SIZE is reduced (as well as the file
    > size) whereas in the other case, the image SIZE remains the same but the
    > file size is reduced.
    > How exactly does each process affect the appearance of say an 8x10 print.
    > Bob Williams


    The finest visible detail in the 10Mpixel image will be about 1/300"
    across whereas in the 2.5Mpixel image it will be 1/150".

    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
     
    Martin Brown, Jul 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.

    You speak as if others don't know more than you ever will.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jul 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:16:50 +0100, bugbear
    <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

    >Outing Trolls is FUN! 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.

    >
    >Well done.
    >
    > BugBear


    Does the rest of the answer that you snipped reveal the depths of your
    ignorance? Of course it does.

    Don't you just love those blinders of self-induced-ignorance that you wear
    in order to retain your bliss of ignorance. Ah ... the bliss of ignorance.
    You revel in it so well.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jul 30, 2010
    #3
  4. Martin Brown

    Peter Guest

    "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Jul 30, 2010
    #4
  5. On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:55 -0400, "Peter" <>
    wrote:

    >"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jul 30, 2010
    #5
  6. Martin Brown

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:55 -0400, "Peter" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> 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.
    >

    Just do the resizing in Irfanview (Lanczos) and the rest in your software of
    choice.
     
    Tim Conway, Jul 30, 2010
    #6
  7. Martin Brown

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:55 -0400, "Peter" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> 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.
     
    Tim Conway, Jul 30, 2010
    #7
  8. Martin Brown

    Peter Guest

    "Tim Conway" <> wrote in message
    news:i2ulah$lpt$-september.org...
    >
    > "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:55 -0400, "Peter"
    >> <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> 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.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Jul 30, 2010
    #8
  9. "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:z8z4o.4989$F%...
    []
    > 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


    That reflects my own findings, Martin

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 30, 2010
    #9
  10. "Tim Conway" <> wrote in message
    news:i2ulah$lpt$-september.org...
    []
    > And you don't have to be so damn rude.


    Better to kill-file it, not repeat it's lies, and not to feed it.
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 30, 2010
    #10
  11. -----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/search.aspx?artist=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+ViouvcCgtVmTTBA7
    OP3BJ42BMPBqplRwRtnH5jZiSPXOfeJrcuYQyXSyk2TcheqWBS3WX0Wi3CPFJlqa
    3ZfmUU49uHbYJLedlj5Vqfb4ZBSFQ+UF5vjY2mqDcqgfj6918JK6SwVQI5qBuMU=
    =yB/A
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Jul 30, 2010
    #11
  12. Martin Brown

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:4c52dc1e$0$5499$-secrets.com...
    > "Tim Conway" <> wrote in message
    > news:i2ulah$lpt$-september.org...
    >>
    >> "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:55 -0400, "Peter"
    >>> <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> 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.
     
    Tim Conway, Jul 30, 2010
    #12
  13. Martin Brown

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010073009383611272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-07-30 09:02:22 -0700, "Tim Conway" <> 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
     
    Peter, Jul 30, 2010
    #13
  14. Martin Brown

    LOL! Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:08:38 -0400, "Peter" <>
    wrote:

    >"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >news:2010073009383611272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2010-07-30 09:02:22 -0700, "Tim Conway" <> 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 fucking pretend-photographer troll.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 30, 2010
    #14
  15. -----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" <>
    > wrote:


    > You mean like yourself? BS-Artists? I've yet to see even ONE valid bit of
    > information come from you. You lousy fucking 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/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

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

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMU282AAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bkIEH/jQh5YPClb1W0/ZtQyLzDIk2
    HNhVsk4vj29bmtAmsqoEyvMoFwPZdt8f67vTXas1A+7b1xt2LXmGkcH/MUKvs/AS
    YTc20oF0uSQMWEiuAq910W8OiLzV0D4YBi/y5WCZWaESrV2wLETVQf0MqFM8vRDu
    6ik8SR7Oc8ctWJjSFPQj4WVZCVjJot/jXb16JfhPOq/QG6O6sy2iH+OMmZkxthcG
    dbguIa7F0xnNMaoZzvCeJGZ0Lz/lMX7vu7HbjJcZnk7mOm6J1TzK5Gm54wCTks5W
    Jo4JBAr5VK8tRrLrS83PgUS3BszjfqKBuOEDrKfQfAxSOMh4+e2jYUs9elUOorc=
    =fPjp
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Jul 31, 2010
    #15
  16. 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
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 31, 2010
    #16
  17. -----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/search.aspx?artist=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+xb0x9LGkHkbirOG8abqHjT6jpsZv7vPVM
    WDD4ZMjc2E3zaImibbMGCyeJ7BHhDZandNNluo1GmPsB3PJwIq4zciJ03ny/RdJV
    K9CRogLIOmfCNNcUS5LeQJSqYusPqHwSmnBLlbmoXwr7mlb+4RM6Ws2GfonjcuGQ
    p2lBnLh4FsNt0AsG7oG0zUD82/qzZxNOzy4zVJYqzTKBdFUlLFdz0w0l71ZDbFg6
    zmJ8W8SXsMmfUzkUMyx06/NMEOnkw/8OyBhufDI5tSzJjJQmoyxcGWB8+JNcL0c=
    =UfH2
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Jul 31, 2010
    #17
  18. Martin Brown

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:05:42 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    <> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 1, 2010
    #18
  19. Martin Brown

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:50:30 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    <> wrote:
    : On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:31:36 -0400, Robert Coe <> 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 shit 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
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 1, 2010
    #19
    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. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    919
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  2. Renee
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    Dave Martindale
    Jul 18, 2004
  3. john chapman

    Best Image -- Image Size vs Compression

    john chapman, Aug 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    734
    john chapman
    Aug 9, 2004
  4. ray

    Re: Image Size and Compression.

    ray, Jul 30, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    521
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2010
  5. Andrew Reilly

    Re: Image Size vs Compression.

    Andrew Reilly, Mar 28, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    231
    Andrew Reilly
    Mar 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page