Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 27, 2005 2:06:11 AM

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

I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.

We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
same shot with both cameras.

Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.

On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
seems to produce a more detailed picture.

Canon - 1743kb
Kodak - 736kb

Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
totally different sizes?

TIA

Louise
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:06:12 AM

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

"Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cafa8bb53e4c5e2989829@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
> Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
>
> We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
> same shot with both cameras.
>
> Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
>
> On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
> produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
> seems to produce a more detailed picture.
>
> Canon - 1743kb
> Kodak - 736kb
>
> Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
> producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
> totally different sizes?

JPG files use lossy compression. The higher the compression, the more
detail is lost and the smaller the file size. PhotoShop Elements allows for
12 compression rates and you will get a different file size for each. The
Canon apparently uses less compression than the Kodak, thus more detail and
larger file size.

Ron
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:06:12 AM

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

Louise wrote:

> I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
> Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
>
> We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
> same shot with both cameras.
>
> Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
>
> On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
> produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
> seems to produce a more detailed picture.
>
> Canon - 1743kb
> Kodak - 736kb
>
> Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
> producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
> totally different sizes?

As Ron Recer responded.. There are different compression levels.
Canon and Kodak use slightly different levels.

If you really want to be confused, open one of your images in your
favorite image editor and save it again..

It should be a completely different size.. It could be larger, or
smaller.. It all depends on the default JPEG compression level of
your editor.

If you choose 'save as' you'll see you can pick the compression
level and have many different file sizes for the same image.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:06:12 AM

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

Louise wrote:
> I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
> Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
>
> We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
> same shot with both cameras.
>
> Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
>
> On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
> produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
> seems to produce a more detailed picture.
>
> Canon - 1743kb
> Kodak - 736kb
>
> Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
> producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
> totally different sizes?
>
> TIA
>
> Louise

Because JPEG compression is subject to various parameters which affect
the compression, thus the size of the file. It's what JPEG DOES. The
Kodak camera compresses more, giving a smaller file, but somewhat less
quality for that savings. Some would say Kodak was a bit overzealous at
conserving flash card space.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:06:13 AM

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

In article <3am6s6F6bf6mjU1@individual.net>,
"Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote:

> "Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cafa8bb53e4c5e2989829@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
> > Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
> >
> > We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
> > same shot with both cameras.
> >
> > Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
> >
> > On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
> > produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
> > seems to produce a more detailed picture.
> >
> > Canon - 1743kb
> > Kodak - 736kb
> >
> > Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
> > producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
> > totally different sizes?
>
> JPG files use lossy compression. The higher the compression, the more
> detail is lost and the smaller the file size. PhotoShop Elements allows for
> 12 compression rates and you will get a different file size for each. The
> Canon apparently uses less compression than the Kodak, thus more detail and
> larger file size.
>
> Ron

And Canon has massive amounts of application data in the EXIF/JFIF
format. I've seen it as bad as 1MB for the 300D. Running both files
through a utility to strip the app data and optimize the Huffman
encoding will result in a better comparison. Jpegtran can do it with
the "optimize" and "copy none" flags.
March 27, 2005 11:52:28 AM

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

In article <bjn1e.17529$ej1.7969@fe04.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> Louise wrote:
> > I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
> > Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
> >
> > We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
> > same shot with both cameras.
> >
> > Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
> >
> > On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
> > produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
> > seems to produce a more detailed picture.
> >
> > Canon - 1743kb
> > Kodak - 736kb
> >
> > Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
> > producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
> > totally different sizes?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Louise
>
> Because JPEG compression is subject to various parameters which affect
> the compression, thus the size of the file. It's what JPEG DOES. The
> Kodak camera compresses more, giving a smaller file, but somewhat less
> quality for that savings. Some would say Kodak was a bit overzealous at
> conserving flash card space.
>
>
>
Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
has a raw mode as well.

Louise
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 11:52:29 AM

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

Louise wrote:
> In article <bjn1e.17529$ej1.7969@fe04.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
>
>>Louise wrote:
>>
>>>I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
>>>Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
>>>
>>>We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
>>>same shot with both cameras.
>>>
>>>Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
>>>
>>>On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
>>>produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
>>>seems to produce a more detailed picture.
>>>
>>>Canon - 1743kb
>>>Kodak - 736kb
>>>
>>>Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
>>>producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
>>>totally different sizes?
>>>
>>>TIA
>>>
>>>Louise
>>
>>Because JPEG compression is subject to various parameters which affect
>>the compression, thus the size of the file. It's what JPEG DOES. The
>>Kodak camera compresses more, giving a smaller file, but somewhat less
>>quality for that savings. Some would say Kodak was a bit overzealous at
>>conserving flash card space.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
> not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
> has a raw mode as well.
>
> Louise

In 99% of the cases, the advantage is with the Kodak and its higher
compression. As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:52:55 PM

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

Louise wrote:
[]
> Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
> not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure
> it has a raw mode as well.

Louise, if you take the same photo with each camera - can you see the
difference in the JPEG compression other than in the file size, under your
own typical viewing conditions? If so, then the Kodak is over compressed,
if not, then the Canon has too little compression.

Remember that JPEG is designed so that the compression it does is
invisible - but the visibility of the artefacts will depend on viewing
conditions. Print and view a 6 x 4 inch and an 8 x 10 inch image - you
will likely be more critical of the larger image because you view it
closer - i.e. the image diagonal will subtend a greater angle.

What I am saying is that there will be an optimum JPEG compression for
each circumstance. Go beyond that and you are simply wasting memory.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:52:56 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Louise wrote:
> []
>
>>Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
>>not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure
>>it has a raw mode as well.
>
>
> Louise, if you take the same photo with each camera - can you see the
> difference in the JPEG compression other than in the file size, under your
> own typical viewing conditions? If so, then the Kodak is over compressed,
> if not, then the Canon has too little compression.
>
> Remember that JPEG is designed so that the compression it does is
> invisible - but the visibility of the artefacts will depend on viewing
> conditions. Print and view a 6 x 4 inch and an 8 x 10 inch image - you
> will likely be more critical of the larger image because you view it
> closer - i.e. the image diagonal will subtend a greater angle.
>
> What I am saying is that there will be an optimum JPEG compression for
> each circumstance. Go beyond that and you are simply wasting memory.
>
>
In a few (very few) pictures I have taken, the Kodak compression becomes
a problem. More often (99% of my pictures), it is an advantage is
saving storage. I would say that if you take a LOT of pictures of trees
and grass, you might want to avoid the Kodak cameras before the DX7440,
which has an optional 'fine' compression.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:59:06 PM

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

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:

> Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
> not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
> has a raw mode as well.

Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.

Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:57:57 AM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
>long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
>media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
>ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.

What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?

My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.

Dave
March 28, 2005 1:57:58 AM

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

In article <d27a95$4s$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, davem@cs.ubc.ca says...
> What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?
>
> My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
> a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
> certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.
>
> Dave
>
>

The longest wait in the industry (I think) is the Sony F 828 with a 12 to 13
second delay while writing a RAW file (It seems like MUCH longer, but it
isnt).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:57:58 AM

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
>>long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
>>media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
>>ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.
>
>
> What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?
>
> My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
> a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
> certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.
>
> Dave
And that is how may megapixels?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 28, 2005 10:35:11 AM

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

In article <5jvd41tvbsm98gtu0vcu13h2o0ugt8cgiu@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
says...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:
>
> > Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
> > not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
> > has a raw mode as well.
>
> Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
> cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
> settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
> Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
> compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
> manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.
>
> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
> mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
> for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
> use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
> either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
> compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
> only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
> to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
>
>
Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
think about wanting RAW.

Louise
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:10:41 PM

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

Louise wrote:
> In article <5jvd41tvbsm98gtu0vcu13h2o0ugt8cgiu@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
> says...
>
>>On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
>>>not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
>>>has a raw mode as well.
>>
>> Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
>>cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
>>settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
>>Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
>>compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
>>manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.
>>
>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
>>for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
>>use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
>>either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
>>compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
>>only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
>>to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
>>
>>
>
> Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
> think about wanting RAW.
>
> Louise

Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper (and
we hope faster).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 5:54:26 PM

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

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:10:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

>>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
>>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use.
>>
>> Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
>> think about wanting RAW.
>>
>> Louise
>
> Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper
> (and we hope faster).

Hmm. Why am I not surprised at who has given contrarian advice?
:)  There's no reason to worry, but my recommendation still holds,
even if it's used 10 years from now. If making a purchase based on
the fact that a camera has RAW mode, even far in the future, make
sure that it's not going to be impractical to use. Yes, cards will
be larger. But sensors and image sizes will also be larger,
somewhat canceling the advantage of larger cards. And if the camera
will often be used for action photography, RAW pictures may (or may
not) slow the camera down. Again, try to know exactly what you're
getting. It's better for the blood pressure to get the facts
before, not after the purchase.

Returning to a familiar topic, who knows but that in several years
cameras might be able to take 500 pictures using a single AA
battery. In support of this contention, Sony makes minidisc
recorders (that use very small magneto-optical discs), that can
store up to 45 hours of stereo audio on a single disc with very high
quality, easily comparable to FM stereo at the highest compression
levels. I believe this to be higher than 20:1, much more than the
compression used in cameras. Even with this high compression that
adds to battery consumption, these MDs can play up to about 24 hours
- and this is from a single alkaline AA battery. While you can't
get as many hours when recording, writing to the disc probably
requires more current than writing to a flash card since the disc's
surface must be heated for recording to occur. Even then, a single
alkaline battery can last up to 9 hours when recording. Think of
how many pictures a camera could take in only one hour of operation.
Mine can continuously shoot 1.6 frames per second. But allowing for
frequent pauses to select different subjects the average could be
reduced to 1 frame per second. That's still enough to take well
over 3000 shots, far more pictures than you or I take in a year!
Even if AF and zooming had to be replaced with manual focus and
zooming (which I'd prefer, actually) to get so many pictures from a
single battery, it would be quite an achievement, and not as
improbable as 'common sense' would have us believe.


Maybe Sony should consider putting a minidisc in their cameras.
That's not entirely unreasonable, as there's at least one MD
recorder they make that's extremely thin, probably taking up 1/3 or
1/4 the volume of a moderately small camera such as Canon's A80.
And 1GB minidiscs are far cheaper than the smallest, most
inexpensive CF or SD card.

But no, I don't think Sony will consider doing anything this
radical. It would be nice if they did though. Optical discs are
much more rugged, and supposedly have much longer archival life than
CDs.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 9:19:15 PM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>> My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
>> a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
>> certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.

>And that is how may megapixels?

It's 4 MP.

If you assume that 8 MP cameras have no faster interface to the CF card,
you might extrapolate that 8 MP would take 10 seconds for a P&S camera.
Some DSLRs have more pixels than this, but they also have faster card
interfaces and larger RAM buffers making this less of a problem.

Now, how about an example of a camera that takes anywhere near 30
seconds to write a RAW image of any size? Actually, you said "30 extra
seconds", not "30 seconds", so you must believe that there is some
camera that takes 30 seconds longer for RAW than for JPEG, and thus more
than 30 seconds total.

Dave
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 11:26:42 PM

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>>My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
>>>a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
>>>certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.
>
>
>>And that is how may megapixels?
>
>
> It's 4 MP.
>
> If you assume that 8 MP cameras have no faster interface to the CF card,
> you might extrapolate that 8 MP would take 10 seconds for a P&S camera.
> Some DSLRs have more pixels than this, but they also have faster card
> interfaces and larger RAM buffers making this less of a problem.
>
> Now, how about an example of a camera that takes anywhere near 30
> seconds to write a RAW image of any size? Actually, you said "30 extra
> seconds", not "30 seconds", so you must believe that there is some
> camera that takes 30 seconds longer for RAW than for JPEG, and thus more
> than 30 seconds total.
>
> Dave

You make many assumptions, many of which aren't true in general.

It takes my camera about 25 seconds to write 6 jpg pictures to the flash
card. The files are about 1 meg each. Given a write speed in that
range, you figure out how long it would take to write a RAW file from a
camera with 8 MP. If you snap pictures until you fill the camera's
buffer, it will probably take at least that 30 seconds before it has
emptied the buffer to the card, UNLESS you have a very fast camera, and
a very fast card. So the warning is well-founded.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 11:29:17 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:10:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
>>>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use.
>>>
>>>Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
>>>think about wanting RAW.
>>>
>>>Louise
>>
>>Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper
>>(and we hope faster).
>
>
> Hmm. Why am I not surprised at who has given contrarian advice?
> :)  There's no reason to worry, but my recommendation still holds,
> even if it's used 10 years from now. If making a purchase based on
> the fact that a camera has RAW mode, even far in the future, make
> sure that it's not going to be impractical to use. Yes, cards will
> be larger. But sensors and image sizes will also be larger,
> somewhat canceling the advantage of larger cards. And if the camera
> will often be used for action photography, RAW pictures may (or may
> not) slow the camera down. Again, try to know exactly what you're
> getting. It's better for the blood pressure to get the facts
> before, not after the purchase.
>
> Returning to a familiar topic, who knows but that in several years
> cameras might be able to take 500 pictures using a single AA
> battery. In support of this contention, Sony makes minidisc
> recorders (that use very small magneto-optical discs), that can
> store up to 45 hours of stereo audio on a single disc with very high
> quality, easily comparable to FM stereo at the highest compression
> levels. I believe this to be higher than 20:1, much more than the
> compression used in cameras. Even with this high compression that
> adds to battery consumption, these MDs can play up to about 24 hours
> - and this is from a single alkaline AA battery. While you can't
> get as many hours when recording, writing to the disc probably
> requires more current than writing to a flash card since the disc's
> surface must be heated for recording to occur. Even then, a single
> alkaline battery can last up to 9 hours when recording. Think of
> how many pictures a camera could take in only one hour of operation.
> Mine can continuously shoot 1.6 frames per second. But allowing for
> frequent pauses to select different subjects the average could be
> reduced to 1 frame per second. That's still enough to take well
> over 3000 shots, far more pictures than you or I take in a year!
> Even if AF and zooming had to be replaced with manual focus and
> zooming (which I'd prefer, actually) to get so many pictures from a
> single battery, it would be quite an achievement, and not as
> improbable as 'common sense' would have us believe.
>
>
> Maybe Sony should consider putting a minidisc in their cameras.
> That's not entirely unreasonable, as there's at least one MD
> recorder they make that's extremely thin, probably taking up 1/3 or
> 1/4 the volume of a moderately small camera such as Canon's A80.
> And 1GB minidiscs are far cheaper than the smallest, most
> inexpensive CF or SD card.
>
> But no, I don't think Sony will consider doing anything this
> radical. It would be nice if they did though. Optical discs are
> much more rugged, and supposedly have much longer archival life than
> CDs.
>

I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
way out there on your speculations.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:56:51 AM

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

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
> now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
> way out there on your speculations.

Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
"skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines. :) 
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 4:14:09 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
>>now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
>>way out there on your speculations.
>
>
> Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
> efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
> it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
> "skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
> that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
> soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
> built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
> etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines. :) 
>

Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.

Medical imaging already does some rather interesting things, such as a
large pill that you can swallow that transmits thousands of images from
inside your body to a receiver as it passes through the digestive
system. It contains imaging system, light, battery, and transmitter.
But it isn't cheap!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 4:14:10 AM

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

In article <Om62e.5388$no4.1669@fe02.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> ASAAR wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
> >>now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
> >>way out there on your speculations.
> >
> >
> > Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
> > efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
> > it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
> > "skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
> > that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
> > soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
> > built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
> > etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines. :) 
> >
>
> Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.

It sounds like it only works with the Kodak easywhateverthingy site. I
wouldn't put much trust in technology that's locked into using a
specific proprietary web page. Make one that can talk to a simple
open-source server and I'll be impressed.

Of course public bandwidth is still an issue. I tried to upload my
photos to my home computer from Oahu but the whole island is wired with
Time Warner/Road Runner service that's barely faster than dialup. It
wasn't usable. Last time I was in Germany, I had to leave the camera
uploading for hours on a friend's ISDN.


> Medical imaging already does some rather interesting things, such as a
> large pill that you can swallow that transmits thousands of images from
> inside your body to a receiver as it passes through the digestive
> system. It contains imaging system, light, battery, and transmitter.
> But it isn't cheap!

And you have to give it back when you're done with it.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 11:46:48 AM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>You make many assumptions, many of which aren't true in general.

>It takes my camera about 25 seconds to write 6 jpg pictures to the flash
>card. The files are about 1 meg each. Given a write speed in that
>range, you figure out how long it would take to write a RAW file from a
>camera with 8 MP.

If you extrapolate from your camera (what is it?) to an 8 MP camera, you
may well get a 30 sec write speed. But, in fact, are there any 8 MP
cameras that take this long? Or do all 8 MP cameras have faster
interfaces? I certainly don't recall reading any reviews of cameras
with that sort of single-image RAW write times. That was my point.

>If you snap pictures until you fill the camera's
>buffer, it will probably take at least that 30 seconds before it has
>emptied the buffer to the card, UNLESS you have a very fast camera, and
>a very fast card. So the warning is well-founded.

But the time to empty a full buffer is very different from the time to
write a single image. I thought we were talking about the latter in
this branch of the thread.

Dave
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:27:09 PM

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:14:09 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.

Then that might be the one I read about. The name was the
_something_ One. If I remember correctly, one drawback was that it
didn't have a viewfinder.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:30:43 PM

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

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:08:34 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> And you have to give it back when you're done with it.

Nothing wrong with that. It's the doctors that might need it
quickly to be used for the next patient that might cause problems by
reaching into places where the sun don't shine.
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:38:03 PM

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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <Om62e.5388$no4.1669@fe02.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>ASAAR wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
>>>>now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
>>>>way out there on your speculations.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
>>>efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
>>>it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
>>>"skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
>>>that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
>>>soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
>>>built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
>>>etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines. :) 
>>>
>>
>>Uhhh, Kodak has one coming in June, I believe.
>
>
> It sounds like it only works with the Kodak easywhateverthingy site. I
> wouldn't put much trust in technology that's locked into using a
> specific proprietary web page. Make one that can talk to a simple
> open-source server and I'll be impressed.

My understanding is that it will work with any WiFi setup. Perhaps I
misread. If it wouldn't work on my wireless internet system, it
wouldn't be of much use to me.

>
> Of course public bandwidth is still an issue. I tried to upload my
> photos to my home computer from Oahu but the whole island is wired with
> Time Warner/Road Runner service that's barely faster than dialup. It
> wasn't usable. Last time I was in Germany, I had to leave the camera
> uploading for hours on a friend's ISDN.
>
>
>
>>Medical imaging already does some rather interesting things, such as a
>>large pill that you can swallow that transmits thousands of images from
>>inside your body to a receiver as it passes through the digestive
>>system. It contains imaging system, light, battery, and transmitter.
>>But it isn't cheap!
>
>
> And you have to give it back when you're done with it.
Worse, yet, you have to retrieve it for them!



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 12:42:24 PM

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>You make many assumptions, many of which aren't true in general.
>
>
>>It takes my camera about 25 seconds to write 6 jpg pictures to the flash
>>card. The files are about 1 meg each. Given a write speed in that
>>range, you figure out how long it would take to write a RAW file from a
>>camera with 8 MP.
>
>
> If you extrapolate from your camera (what is it?) to an 8 MP camera, you
> may well get a 30 sec write speed. But, in fact, are there any 8 MP
> cameras that take this long? Or do all 8 MP cameras have faster
> interfaces? I certainly don't recall reading any reviews of cameras
> with that sort of single-image RAW write times. That was my point.
>
>
>>If you snap pictures until you fill the camera's
>>buffer, it will probably take at least that 30 seconds before it has
>>emptied the buffer to the card, UNLESS you have a very fast camera, and
>>a very fast card. So the warning is well-founded.
>
>
> But the time to empty a full buffer is very different from the time to
> write a single image. I thought we were talking about the latter in
> this branch of the thread.
>
> Dave

We are talking about bytes to write. I have read a lot of comments
about slow writing of RAW and .TIFF files to flash media. I assume that
if you buy a $1500 camera, it will write fast enough to make the 80x
flash cards worthwhile, but that is still only about 5 megabytes/sec.,
and there is a bit of overhead to consider as well.
In ANY case, RAW will take several times as long as a .jpg to write to
the card, and .TIFF even longer than RAW. Many users seem to consider
these delays limiting.
And, of course, you get to change cards more often as well.
I also understand that when reviewing RAW files, there can be more delay
than with .jpg files.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:19:34 PM

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

Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Canon - 1743kb
> Kodak - 736kb

You can use the "jpegdump" program to ascertain what JPEG quality values
and chroma subsampling were used to write these images.

If you don't have access to "jpegdump" put some Canon and Kodak pictures
online and I'll run the program for you.

I'm curious to know how Canon and Kodak JPEG compares.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 12:47:41 AM

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

In article <42499c36@news.meer.net>, Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:
>Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Canon - 1743kb
>> Kodak - 736kb
>
>You can use the "jpegdump" program to ascertain what JPEG quality values
>and chroma subsampling were used to write these images.
>
>If you don't have access to "jpegdump" put some Canon and Kodak pictures
>online and I'll run the program for you.
>
>I'm curious to know how Canon and Kodak JPEG compares.

I noticed a comparable jpg size difference between images taken
on the Canon 300D and a Sony DSC-P5. The 300D images were consistently
50% larger. I downloaded a trial version of PhotoMan from
http://homepages.tesco.net/~Keith.Sheppard/photoman/hom...
and discovered the Canon images contained a lot of filler following
the headers and image data.

I used Irfanview's "JPG - Lossless Transformations" with the "NONE"
setting to effectively optimize and clean the data. Afterward the
size of the Canon 300D jpg images were approximately the same size
as the Sony images.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:01:34 PM

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

Bruce Uttley <beu@ist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> I noticed a comparable jpg size difference between images taken
> on the Canon 300D and a Sony DSC-P5. The 300D images were consistently
> 50% larger. I downloaded a trial version of PhotoMan from
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~Keith.Sheppard/photoman/hom...
> and discovered the Canon images contained a lot of filler following
> the headers and image data.
>
> I used Irfanview's "JPG - Lossless Transformations" with the "NONE"
> setting to effectively optimize and clean the data. Afterward the
> size of the Canon 300D jpg images were approximately the same size
> as the Sony images.

Interesting...

A friend who has a Canon PowerShit G3 gives me JPEG quality 88-93
with 2:1 chroma subsampling. Probably not the highest Q setting.

These files are extremely bloated, not just with EXIF.
!