Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pixels vs compression vs quality.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 27, 2005 5:48:19 PM

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

I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30 3.2
Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
So I'm wondering;

1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient for
most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?

2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of pixels)
effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.

3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
photos for own use?

Thanks.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 6:27:08 PM

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

Beano wrote:
> I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30
3.2
> Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
> pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
> select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
> compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
> So I'm wondering;
>
> 1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
> pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
> suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient
for
> most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
> 3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?
>
> 2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of
pixels)
> effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
> reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.
>
> 3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
> photos for own use?
>
> Thanks.

Since memory cards are so cheap there is little reason not to shoot
full resolution with the lowest compression setting. How much the
compression messes up the photo will depend on what is in the scene, a
very busy photo with lots of detail will suffer more from compression
then a photo that is mostly sky.

At first glance the compression level might not seem to make a
difference but higher compression settings will limit what you can do
with the photo afterwards. For example many photos benefit from some
sharpening, if the photo has been save in low quality (high
compression) the sharpening will really make the jpeg artifacts stand
out.

Scott
April 27, 2005 6:40:25 PM

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

Beano wrote:
> I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30
3.2
> Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
> pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
> select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
> compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
> So I'm wondering;
>
> 1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
> pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
> suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient
for
> most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
> 3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?
>

It's a bit controversial, but most digital photographers would tell
you:

Remember you can always throw away pixels if you have too many, but you
can never get back information (ie. pixels) that were never recorded.

A lower resolution WILL suffice, but only if you're a fantastic
photographer that can take every picture exactly right every time. Take
each picture as though you'll never get another chance to take it - at
highest resolution and at highest quality. Then, later on, you can
easily crop and edit it. That's the REAL power of digital photography -
you can (sometimes) fix it even after you've gone home - and you don't
have to be a darkroom wizard to do it.

Most 3.2 Mpixel cameras take perfectly good pictures - no one would buy
them otherwise. It's more than just pixels, though - it's the quality
of the lens, the pixels (both quantity AND quality), and also the
algorithm used to compress the data that's important to final image
quality.

With 3.2 Mpixels you won't be able to blow up to 11X14" without
starting to get visible digital artifacts like moire and "JPEG jaggies"
and the like. 8X10" will be stretching it but possible with a really
good picture. At 4X6, it's more the optics and compression algorithm
that're affecting picture quality than the number of pixels. I recently
printed a couple of ~700Kpixel pics at 4X6" by accident; I messed up
when saving my edits. They looked surprisingly good, they were a bit
soft, but that was the only thing that tipped me off that there was
something wrong.

> 2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of
pixels)
> effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
> reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.

Image compression comes in two flavors - "lossy" and "non-lossy". The
uncompressed data from a 3 Mpixel camera is very large - at least 3
bytes per pixel - so you end up with ~9-10 MB of data; with non-lossy
TIFF-LZW compression the file size will end up about 4-5 MB per image -
too big for most of us. Most cameras use a type of lossy compression
called JPEG compression, which actually discards "unimportant" data
from the photo as part of it's compression algorithm (thus "loss-y").
It also uses something like ".zip" programs do to compress it even
further.

The discarded data is not usually noticable, unless you blow up the
picture a lot, for example, or when you crop the picture too
aggressively. You'll read a lot about "RAW" files and "TIFF" and how
superior it is; well, it IS superior but it's also not necessary if
you're just taking snapshots. Many of us are quite happy with the
results we get from JPEG compression, as long as it's not overdone.

>
> 3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
> photos for own use?

See above..... :-)
>
> Thanks.

You're welcome!
ECM
Related resources
April 28, 2005 1:16:17 AM

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

"Beano" <robininbkk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D fb1f9ea.0504271248.7c9d1b4e@posting.google.com...
> I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30 3.2
> Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
> pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
> select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
> compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
> So I'm wondering;
>
> 1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
> pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
> suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient for
> most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
> 3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?
The answer depends on what size of print that you want.
>
> 2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of pixels)
> effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
> reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.
Yes, compression does affect picture quality because (most of the time) you
are talking about a jpg format. The jpg method is a lossy compression; it
discards certain information to achive a smaller file size. Once the
information is discarded, it is gone forever. The "best" compression
discards the least amount of information hence the loss will be much harder
to see.
>
> 3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
> photos for own use?
1: The maximum number of pixels. You cannot be certain that you will never
need a lesser amount.
2. Least amount of compression.
Actually for images that I intend for large size prints, I always use TIFF.
Jim
>
> Thanks.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:00:10 AM

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

"Beano" <robininbkk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D fb1f9ea.0504271248.7c9d1b4e@posting.google.com...
> I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30 3.2
> Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
> pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
> select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
> compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
> So I'm wondering;
>
> 1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
> pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
> suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient for
> most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
> 3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?
>
> 2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of pixels)
> effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
> reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.
>
> 3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
> photos for own use?
>
> Thanks.
Compression levels do indeed affect image quality. The higher the
compression, the smaller the file, but there will be jpeg compression
artifacts in the image. It is always a trade off, so you have to select the
resolution (no. of pixels) or the quality (compression) for the intended
purpose.

At the highest resolution setting, a 3 megapixel camera is approx 2000
pixels wide by 1600 high. To produce a high quality print, you will need
around 300 dots per inch. While not exactly the same, 300 pixels per inch of
image file can be substituted. So if we take the horizontal pixel count 2000
divided by 300 dpi is 6.667, or about 7. So, a 5x7 inch is in the capability
of the camera. Since 250 dpi or less may be acceptable you may be able to do
8x10s, but but I'd say that's pushing it with 3.2 MP. One thing I must add
is quality of the lens and processing the camera does on the image to get
the final image file is important. I've seen 3MP cameras of one brand out
resolve detail in the image from another brand's 4MP model.

For quality prints, I'd use the highest resolution and quality settings. If
memory card space is an issue, you can get by with the better setting.

For images to be sent via email or posted on the web, you can use a lower
resolution and a lower quality setting.

HTH, John
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:23:12 AM

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

robininbkk@hotmail.com (Beano) writes:

> I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30 3.2
> Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
> pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
> select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
> compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
> So I'm wondering;
>
> 1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
> pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
> suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient for
> most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
> 3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?

For most snapshooting needs, 3MP is decent.

The rule-of-thumb for "fully photo quality" prints is 300
camera-original pixels per print inch. 3.2MP nearly makes this for
8x10 prints. For snapshot purposes, very few people will notice the
difference (and it depends a lot on the exact picture, too).

> 2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of
> pixels) effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply
> used to reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.

JPEG compression is "lossy"; it loses information. As you turn the
compression ratio up, the quality loss goes up.

> 3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
> photos for own use?

I'd shoot everything at full resolution, highest jpeg quality,
myself. 3.2 megapixels is small enough that the potential savings
from making the files smaller aren't of much interest compared to the
potential benefit of having the best possible file of my image.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 6:01:42 AM

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

Beano wrote:
> I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30 3.2
> Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
> pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
> select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
> compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
> So I'm wondering;
>
> 1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
> pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
> suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient for
> most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
> 3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?
>
> 2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of pixels)
> effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
> reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.
>
> 3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
> photos for own use?
>
> Thanks.

A 3mp camera will, all things being equal, produce a quite usable 8x10
print, viewed at a 'normal' distance. More pixels will give a sharper
picture, and can be viewed from a closer distance.
Compression beyond a certain level does affect picture quality. The
compression used in digital cameras is called JPEG compression, and one
of the ways it achieves its good compression ratios is that it discards
data that it can, mostly, recreate when decompressing. This can result
in ugly 'compression artifacts' in the pictures.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 6:04:18 AM

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

Jim wrote:
> "Beano" <robininbkk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D fb1f9ea.0504271248.7c9d1b4e@posting.google.com...
>
>>I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30 3.2
>>Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
>>pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
>>select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
>>compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
>>So I'm wondering;
>>
>>1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
>>pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
>>suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient for
>>most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
>>3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?
>
> The answer depends on what size of print that you want.
>
>>2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of pixels)
>>effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
>>reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.
>
> Yes, compression does affect picture quality because (most of the time) you
> are talking about a jpg format. The jpg method is a lossy compression; it
> discards certain information to achive a smaller file size. Once the
> information is discarded, it is gone forever. The "best" compression
> discards the least amount of information hence the loss will be much harder
> to see.
>
>>3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
>>photos for own use?
>
> 1: The maximum number of pixels. You cannot be certain that you will never
> need a lesser amount.
> 2. Least amount of compression.
> Actually for images that I intend for large size prints, I always use TIFF.
> Jim
>
>>Thanks.
>
>
>
I agree. Since one can seldom anticipate the exact end use for any
picture before seeing it, it is best to capture as much information as
possible. It can always be discarded later, but the data, once
discarded, can never be recovered. Flash card space is cheap, and gets
cheaper by the day, so there is little motivation NOT to record the most
information possible for every picture.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 7:46:36 AM

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

I've gone up the megapix hill, from less than 1 up though 8. As most
posters have suggested, it is wise to shoot at the lowest compression
level your camera permits. This all said...

I find that my 3 megapix Olympus produces fine 8x10s at its best
setting, but with some tweaking in PS Elements I can get extremely good
ones at the HQ setting. My 5 and 8 megapix cameras produce fine 8x10s
from raw, SHQ and HQ settings. Sure, maybe if you stared at the from a
few inches away you would notice some difference between settings, but
by the time they get behind glass on a wall it's hard to tell -- and
nobody has ever looked at my prints for artifacts! All my cameras, from
1.3 megapix up, produce fine 4x6's from HQ setting with a little
post-processing. For me the factors include potential use (I print
maybe 1 out of a hundred 'recreational' photos, mainly 4x6s of my
grandson), how much I want to mess around with memory cards or backup
on a long trip and, yes, how much I want to clog up my hard drive and
bins of cdr's and dvd's. I would suggest that you begin with an extra
memory card and shooting at the highest level you can. Get to know your
camera and refine your skills. You may find, as I have, that you can do
some triage as your experience grows, reducing resolution a bit for
mundane snapshots that are surely not headed for a big crop or print.

I'd also suggest that you read reviews carefully. For example, those of
my 5 and 8 megapix Olympus cameras suggest very little difference
between the SHQ and HQ settings, and I have done a lot of my own
testing which supports that. I do use raw for any commercial work I do,
and save edits as TIFF files. But for day to day stuff I am
increasingly comfy with HQ when I am on the road without laptop to back
up. When I sense that one in a million shot, of course I go for the
highest possible setting.

Finally, it is tempting to just fire away and take hundreds of images
in place of the dozen or so one would take with film. And buy lots of
cards, a portable cd burner or device which costs as much as the camera
for backup, etc. But, there are many of us who try to keep it simple
and try to travel light, preserve battery capacity and reduce chances
of something getting lost in the shuffle (on more than one occasion
I've gone into a minor panic over where I left a memory card, or why
the camera didn't seem to find the one I just inserted). Last year I
took my 3 megapix Oly on a trip to the UK that required a lot of
backpacking and hoofing around. One shot, taken in the HQ mode, from a
moving train is now on the wall of a gallery. Nobody has ever asked
either whether it was digital or film, or at what resolution it was
shot.

So, good luck, have fun and remember that practice makes
perfect.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:51:09 PM

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

In article <m2ekcva8kf.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>The rule-of-thumb for "fully photo quality" prints is 300
>camera-original pixels per print inch. 3.2MP nearly makes this for
>8x10 prints. For snapshot purposes, very few people will notice the
>difference (and it depends a lot on the exact picture, too).

Printing a 3.2Mpixel image at 8x10 results in 183 (camera) pixels per inch.
That is not all that close to the 300 you listed.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:51:10 PM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <m2ekcva8kf.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> The rule-of-thumb for "fully photo quality" prints is 300
>> camera-original pixels per print inch. 3.2MP nearly makes this for
>> 8x10 prints. For snapshot purposes, very few people will notice the
>> difference (and it depends a lot on the exact picture, too).
>
> Printing a 3.2Mpixel image at 8x10 results in 183 (camera) pixels per
> inch. That is not all that close to the 300 you listed.

But in practice a 3.2MP print on A4 (297 x 210mm) looks quite acceptable,
even if it is only 183 pixels per inch. The 300 is only a guideline, a
rule-of thumb, and what matters is how the print looks to you. The 300
ppi will look a little sharper than the 183 ppi, but is that critical to
the particular photograph? Are you going to look at the print from normal
viewing distance, or examine it under a magnifying lens?

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:51:10 PM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <m2ekcva8kf.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>The rule-of-thumb for "fully photo quality" prints is 300
>>camera-original pixels per print inch. 3.2MP nearly makes this for
>>8x10 prints. For snapshot purposes, very few people will notice the
>>difference (and it depends a lot on the exact picture, too).
>
>
> Printing a 3.2Mpixel image at 8x10 results in 183 (camera) pixels per inch.
> That is not all that close to the 300 you listed.
>
>
Most photographic printing systems have a resolution limited to about
200dpi anyway, so the difference is not great.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 5:22:03 PM

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

In article <i83ce.21168$G8.6988@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>But in practice a 3.2MP print on A4 (297 x 210mm) looks quite acceptable,
>even if it is only 183 pixels per inch. The 300 is only a guideline, a
>rule-of thumb, and what matters is how the print looks to you. The 300
>ppi will look a little sharper than the 183 ppi, but is that critical to
>the particular photograph? Are you going to look at the print from normal
>viewing distance, or examine it under a magnifying lens?

I once printed a D1 image (part of street) at 20x30cm and I do not consider
that print good enough. I think that for subjects with fine details you do
want to stay around 300 ppi and not drop below 200 ppi.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:22:54 PM

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

In article <wn6ce.23569$Jg7.20366@fe03.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Printing a 3.2Mpixel image at 8x10 results in 183 (camera) pixels per inch.
>> That is not all that close to the 300 you listed.
>>
>Most photographic printing systems have a resolution limited to about
>200dpi anyway, so the difference is not great.

Over here (in .nl), 300 ppi is standard for printing to RA-4 paper for
sizes upto 20x30cm.

I don't think 200 ppi is enough for really sharp prints.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:27:01 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Beano wrote:
>
>> I'm new to digital photography having just been given a Pentax S30 3.2
>> Meg pixel camera. According to the manual I can select the no. of
>> pixels, which obviously impacts the data volume. But I can also
>> select the picture 'Quality'(good, better, best) which adjusts the
>> compression ratio and also effects the data volume.
>> So I'm wondering;
>>
>> 1) The manual suggest that I only need to select the highest no. of
>> pixels if printing on A4 paper, otherwise a lower resolution will
>> suffice. Does this mean that a 3.2 Meg pixel camera is sufficient for
>> most needs and anything higher is just uneccesary? At first I thought
>> 3.2Meg would produce a poor quality print, is this not true?
>>
>> 2) Why would selecting the best compression ratio (not no. of pixels)
>> effect the image quality? I thought compresion was simply used to
>> reduce data size and wouldn't impact on quality.
>>
>> 3) What setting would you recommend if using to print standard sized
>> photos for own use?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
> A 3mp camera will, all things being equal, produce a quite usable 8x10
> print, viewed at a 'normal' distance. More pixels will give a sharper
> picture, and can be viewed from a closer distance.
> Compression beyond a certain level does affect picture quality. The
> compression used in digital cameras is called JPEG compression, and
> one of the ways it achieves its good compression ratios is that it
> discards data that it can, mostly, recreate when decompressing. This
> can result in ugly 'compression artifacts' in the pictures.


I would say for that size with minimal cropping you would be encroaching
on 4MP.

>
>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 12:56:02 AM

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

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:

> In article <m2ekcva8kf.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>The rule-of-thumb for "fully photo quality" prints is 300
>>camera-original pixels per print inch. 3.2MP nearly makes this for
>>8x10 prints. For snapshot purposes, very few people will notice the
>>difference (and it depends a lot on the exact picture, too).
>
> Printing a 3.2Mpixel image at 8x10 results in 183 (camera) pixels per inch.
> That is not all that close to the 300 you listed.

The exact resolution depends on the camera format some, but yeah,
they're all closer to 200 than 300. Still works well, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
!