Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Kodak DX6340 jpg size very small at max res.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:54:00 AM

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

Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little puzzled
as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.

I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Tony
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:54:01 AM

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

Tony,

I have the same camera and with the resolution set to maximum (which is
3.2MP, not 4) I have noticed that file size varies. Some pics are less than
1MB, but some are larger than 1MB. I haven't figured out why this is yet.
Quality seems the same. I have to
look into this. I wonder, would pics taken vertically be different than
horizontals in terms of file size?

Mike

"aussieworker" <nothanks@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:41d3275c$0$20070$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
> The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little
puzzled
> as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
>
> I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
> Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
>
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:54:01 AM

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

aussieworker wrote:
> Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
> The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little puzzled
> as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
>
> I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
> Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
>
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>

I have the 4MP DX6490. Kodak uses "very clever" jpeg compression algorithm which
usually results in 500k file sizes. Occasionally I get 1.5MB files when there
isn't much sky or grass.

IMHO they overcompress sky, grass, and even skin tones if you're doing a
close-up portrait.

If you take a landscape with a lot of detail the compression is much less.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:54:01 AM

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

aussieworker wrote:
> Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
> The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little puzzled
> as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
>
> I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
> Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
>
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
Kodak has a rather aggressive cimpression. It is not usually a problem,
but I wish yhey had an option for less compression.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 4:55:49 PM

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

> I have the same camera and with the resolution set to maximum (which is
> 3.2MP, not 4) I have noticed that file size varies. Some pics are less
> than
> 1MB, but some are larger than 1MB. I haven't figured out why this is yet.

The amount of light and color increase the file size. When I take an astro
picture with my telescope the file size is very small. Example a moon
picture is under 200k and Saturn is about 50k.

Brian
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:42:02 PM

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

Greetings Tony,

Actually, the compression used in Kodak cameras is quite sophisticated and
designed to work extremely well in the EasyShare cameras. You will be
pleased with your results. Also, the file size is related to the content of
the image and the resolution at which you are viewing it. For instance, If
you were to go into a novelty shop that had many displays and such along
with multicolored quilts etc. you would find the file size is larger. On
the other hand, if you were to take a picture of a field and sky, the image
file would be smaller. The content and how the image is processed makes the
difference.

I have purchased your model for friends who love the images and believe them
to be extremely good. Also, if you are opening the images in EasyShare
software you can see the resolution setting and such when you change it you
will see the file shift up and down based on the chosen resolution or print
size.

Try going to the Ofoto site and having a print made. If you have not yet
visited them you can get some free prints by which you can judge quality.

Talk to you soon, Tony,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"aussieworker" <nothanks@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:41d3275c$0$20070$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> Just a query for anyone with one of these 4MP cameras.
> The image size at max resolution is below 1MB. This has me a little
puzzled
> as my 5MP Canon produces files typically over 2MB.
>
> I am wondering if Kodak's jpg image compression is more severe than most.
> Leading me into the question of to what detriment to picture quality.
>
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:42:03 PM

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

"Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> schrieb
> Actually, the compression used in Kodak cameras is quite sophisticated and
> designed to work extremely well in the EasyShare cameras. You will be
> pleased with your results.
;) 
Since its difficult to get to this data, are you using a different quality
level for the Y and C channels?
Most cameras apply the same scaling for all channels but having a higher
quality for luminance channel than for the chrominance channel is quite
efficient.
I'm using this for web pictures using the new JPEG features and if you don't
print them it looks really good.

--
Regards
J├╝rgen
http://cpicture.de/en
!