Thoughts about File Size

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
    for about a month now.
    I've experimented with everyhing from
    scenics to close-ups.

    So far, I've been storing my pics
    as 100 > 200Kbyte JPG files.

    On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
    between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.

    I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
    At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
    once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
    between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.

    First premis;
    Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
    Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
    or making poster-sized enlargements ??
    Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


    <rj>
    Guest, Dec 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Robertwgross Guest

    RJ wrote:
    >I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
    >for about a month now.
    >I've experimented with everyhing from
    >scenics to close-ups.
    >So far, I've been storing my pics
    >as 100 > 200Kbyte JPG files.
    >On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
    >between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.
    >I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
    >At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
    >once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
    >between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.
    >First premis;
    >Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
    >Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
    >or making poster-sized enlargements ??
    >Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


    I sense a troll here. Try printing out at 8x10 with a poor resolution image
    like that, and use a very good printer. You will see the problems. Also, if
    your telephoto lens is not long enough, then your captured image will have a
    tiny subject in the center, which forces you to crop. So, you take your 3 MP
    image and take 10% out of the center. Now what do you have? With a high
    resolution camera, you can print and get good results, and you can also crop a
    center and still have enough data to produce a decent one. Viewing on the
    screen is a bad way to judge it.

    ---Bob Gross---
    Robertwgross, Dec 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. <RJ> wrote:
    > First premis;
    > Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
    > Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
    > or making poster-sized enlargements ??
    > Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


    1) To have greater freedom to "digitally zoom" (crop) later

    2) To record/capture greater detail of your subject.

    Just two off the top of my head.
    Reverend Lovejoy, Dec 17, 2004
    #3
  4. <RJ> wrote:
    > I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
    > for about a month now.
    > I've experimented with everyhing from
    > scenics to close-ups.
    >
    > So far, I've been storing my pics
    > as 100 > 200Kbyte JPG files.
    >
    > On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
    > between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.


    On your monitor, you may only be displaying the images at (for example)
    1024 x 768, so about 3/4 MP. If you were to print out at 8 x 10 then the
    difference in using a lower compression (bigger file size) might be more
    apparent. But if the smaller size is good enough for what you need, keep
    using it!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Guest

    Jim Townsend Guest

    RJ wrote:

    >
    > I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
    > for about a month now.
    > I've experimented with everyhing from
    > scenics to close-ups.
    >
    > So far, I've been storing my pics
    > as 100 > 200Kbyte JPG files.
    >
    > On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
    > between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.


    You use the word 'size', but **which** size are you talking about.

    There are *two* sizes to all images.

    - There is the _resolution_ of the image which is measured in pixels.

    - There is the size of the _image file_ as it is stored on disk or in
    your computer's memory which is measured in bytes.

    It's important to realize that Pixels are NOT bytes. With the
    color depth that most digicams use, there are 3 bytes per pixel.

    This means that your 3 MP camera creates images that are 9 Megabytes
    in size. The compression that is built into the JPEG process is
    shrinking them to a much smaller _file size_. BUT, when you view
    these files, they must be uncompressed and still require up 9 megabytes
    of your computer's memory.

    If you're only viewing images on your monitor, then a 3 megapixel
    camera is *major* serious overkill. You only need around 1024x768 which
    is about 3/4 of a Megapixel.

    If you're printing 8"x10" then you do need all the pixels your 3 megapixel
    camera will produce. Anything under 2 Megapixels will result in noticably
    inferior images.
    Jim Townsend, Dec 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Guest

    Tony Guest

    You won't see a difference on your monitor, and if that is all you intend to
    do you will be fine. I wouldn't want to print them though.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "<RJ>" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
    > for about a month now.
    > I've experimented with everyhing from
    > scenics to close-ups.
    >
    > So far, I've been storing my pics
    > as 100 > 200Kbyte JPG files.
    >
    > On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
    > between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.
    >
    > I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
    > At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
    > once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
    > between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.
    >
    > First premis;
    > Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
    > Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
    > or making poster-sized enlargements ??
    > Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?
    >
    >
    > <rj>
    Tony, Dec 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    <RJ> wrote:
    > I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
    > for about a month now.
    > I've experimented with everyhing from
    > scenics to close-ups.
    >
    > So far, I've been storing my pics
    > as 100 > 200Kbyte JPG files.
    >
    > On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
    > between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.
    >
    > I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
    > At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
    > once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
    > between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.
    >
    > First premis;
    > Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
    > Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
    > or making poster-sized enlargements ??
    > Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?
    >
    >
    > <rj>


    No reason. If you are satisfied with the quality, I see no reason to
    try to make you dissatisfied. I have a 4mp Kodak, and the file sizes
    are about the same as yours, which is just a bit TOO much compression.
    I wish Kodak had given me an option for larger files, with less
    compression, although this only matters on 10% or less of my photos, it
    DOES matter sometimes. The larger the file, the more information that
    is stored. JPEG compression discards picture information. Usually, you
    can't notice, but on some subjects, it becomes noticeable.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Dec 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Guest

    Ron Baird Guest

    Hi RJ,

    Sounds like you are really enjoying your new camera. Digital is great is it
    not?

    The reason you do not see much a difference in the two formats is due to
    their being online or screen formats. The real difference will be later
    when you want to print your images. The larger the file (more information)
    the better the print can be. So, if you send a file for printing send a
    larger file. It will make a difference. Also, this is key in the capture
    of the image, i.e. capturing larger file sizes. If you are only going to
    use the images for selling things on eBay for example, then you do not need
    large files. If you are going to print however, use the best setting on
    your camera.

    Talk to you soon, RJ,

    Happy Holidays
    Ron Baird




    "<RJ>" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
    > for about a month now.
    > I've experimented with everyhing from
    > scenics to close-ups.
    >
    > So far, I've been storing my pics
    > as 100 > 200Kbyte JPG files.
    >
    > On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
    > between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.
    >
    > I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
    > At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
    > once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
    > between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.
    >
    > First premis;
    > Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
    > Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
    > or making poster-sized enlargements ??
    > Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?
    >
    >
    > <rj>
    Ron Baird, Dec 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Guest

    Guest

    Ron Hunter:
    Really? 100-200 KB per file from a 4 Mpixel camera? Wow, that's tough -
    those files won't tolerate a lot of editing or cropping, I'll bet.

    I had an old 2 Mpixel HP and it's (best resolution) files were 600-800
    KB. And even then, they were only good for a bit of red-eye reduction
    or color adjustment, they didn't do well with cropping or enlarging at
    all - JPEG blocks, moire and jaggies everywhere. Even without cropping,
    the skys often had color banding from JPEG compression.

    As to the OP's questions, I think he'll have to learn for himself....
    If he's happy with what he's got, more power.

    ECM
    , Dec 23, 2004
    #9
    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. PeterH

    Pixels v Jpeg File Size v Print Size??

    PeterH, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    14,670
    Don Stauffer
    Jan 18, 2004
  2. mark heinemann

    jpg file size ---> print size problem

    mark heinemann, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,681
    Jonathan Wilson
    Apr 29, 2004
  3. Charles Schuler

    Thoughts on sensor size

    Charles Schuler, May 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    423
    Don Stauffer
    Jun 1, 2004
  4. Richard Belthoff

    File Size vs. Printed Photo Size

    Richard Belthoff, Mar 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    477
  5. One4All

    Disconnect Between HD File Size & PS's File Size

    One4All, Sep 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    346
    One4All
    Sep 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page