Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thoughts about File Size

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 17, 2004 1:51:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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>

More about : thoughts file size

Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:21:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<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.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:26:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 9:03:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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---
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:40:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<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 rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<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
December 18, 2004 2:01:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:v656s095dltqrr98ens9qr6dvs01lg0rok@4ax.com...
>
> 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>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 3:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:26:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:v656s095dltqrr98ens9qr6dvs01lg0rok@4ax.com...
>
> 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>
!