Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PICTURE SIZE & QUALITY QUESTIONS:

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:14:21 AM

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

My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536,
1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of TIFF, FINE
and STANDARD.

The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long as I
stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF combination, I don't
see a problem.

So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
quality..

As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x 10),
what do you recommend?

Any info would be helpful.

Thanks.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:14:22 AM

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

General advice:

1/ Always capture images using the highest possible camera resolution.
2/ Never use digital zoom.
3/ Own a computer that can burn CDs or DVDs and archive your shots.
4/ Shoot RAW when you are serious or even when you are not sure (if your
camera has that capability).
5/ Pictures are easily compressed but can never be decompressed. If you
have saved the originals, you are always covered.
6/ One never knows when a really special shot might occur. Cover your ass
by following the above.

If none of the above applies to you, I apologize.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:17:02 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:14:21 GMT, "its_my_dime"
<its_my_dime@yahoo.com.spam (hold the .spam)> wrote:

> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and
> as long as I stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF
> combination, I don't see a problem.
>
> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings
> and quality..

You already know that. Smaller size reduces the quality. Only
you know what is acceptable for *you*. Or I should say that only
you might know, but you don't yet have the experience to tell what
you'd find acceptable.


> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger
> than 8 x 10), what do you recommend?

Take several different types pictures, portraits, landscapes, and
any other types that you think you'll taking in the future. Make
sure that there's sufficient light. Take them at several
resolutions, such as 2560x1920(FINE), 2048x1536(STANDARD) and
1280x960(FINE), if those combinations are all available. Make
several prints of them using paper sizes of 4"x6", 5"x7" and 8"x10".
That should tell you all you need to know. Or would you rather
believe me and not your lying eyes? :) 

It might cost a bit, especially having several 8"x10" prints made,
but in the scheme of things the cost will really not be that
excessive. And if it encourages you to use a higher resolution than
you might otherwise have chosen, the slight one-time cost will be
justified, since you'll know that the end result was higher quality
prints, where you could *see* the difference. On the other hand if
it proves that a lower resolution is adequate, the cost of the
prints would also be justified, since it would give you peace of
mind knowing that by limiting the resolution, you'll have lower
costs (in memory cards), possibly quicker camera performance,
definitely quicker photo editing on your computer, and you'd still
be getting the quality prints that you want.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:35:15 AM

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

Getting prints made from each compression level is not bad advice, but
I usually just figure it out on my own computer. I'll shoot something
just in the house with full-size and a 'fine' setting, then a 'normal'
setting, then a 'low' setting, etc...compare them. I have found that
with my Nikon (old-school 990), I could not find any difference on my
computer if zoomed in under about 400% between fine and normal, so I
often would just shoot snapshots on the 'normal' compression setting
(but still a full-size image).

If you're printing nothing bigger than 8x10 then you should be fine
with almost any setting, I've gotten crystal clear 8x10's from my 3.3MP
camera, so you're definetly set there. If you can spare the memory
space and the time between pictures (IME the compression time is short
the file saving time is long, so compressing more = saving faster,
compressing less = saving longer), then I'd shoot as good as you can
which for me would be the full-size with the highest quality (largest
file-size) jpeg compression you can.

Good Luck!
-Mark
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 4:21:34 AM

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

its_my_dime wrote:
> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x
> 1536, 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of
> TIFF, FINE and STANDARD.
>
> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long
> as I stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF
> combination, I don't see a problem.
>
> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
> quality..
>
> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x
> 10), what do you recommend?
>
> Any info would be helpful.
>
> Thanks.

Decreasing the quality settings reduces the quality of the result and
the amount of information recorded, so you can't go back if you want more
without taking a new photo. I suggest you make a set of photos of the
same subject at the largest, mid and smallest settings and have them all
printed 8x10. I can tell you that I would not use less than your max, but
you may be quite happy with the result at 1280x960 (I doubt if many people
would be happy with a 640x480 printed 8x10).

Only you can decide what is right for you. Only your own actual photos
will show you want you need.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 4:21:35 AM

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> its_my_dime wrote:
>> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048
>> x
>> 1536, 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings
>> of
>> TIFF, FINE and STANDARD.
>>
>> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long
>> as I stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF
>> combination, I don't see a problem.
>>
>> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
>> quality..
>>
>> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8
>> x
>> 10), what do you recommend?
>>
>> Any info would be helpful.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Decreasing the quality settings reduces the quality of the result
> and the amount of information recorded, so you can't go back if you
> want more without taking a new photo. I suggest you make a set of
> photos of the same subject at the largest, mid and smallest settings
> and have them all printed 8x10. I can tell you that I would not use
> less than your max, but you may be quite happy with the result at
> 1280x960 (I doubt if many people would be happy with a 640x480
> printed 8x10).
> Only you can decide what is right for you. Only your own actual
> photos will show you want you need.

I'd like to reprise my customary advice:

Always record at the highest possible fidelity. 1GB cards are coming
down in price, and the ability to generate that life-size hologram of
your beloved but departed naked mole-rat from a bunch of hi-res
pictures isn't here yet, but when it arrives, you'll want to be able
to take advantage of it.

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
—Calvin
June 25, 2005 4:21:36 AM

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

What the hell did you just say????


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:kdWdnbKhLrGJOiHfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>> its_my_dime wrote:
>>> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x
>>> 1536, 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of
>>> TIFF, FINE and STANDARD.
>>>
>>> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long
>>> as I stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF
>>> combination, I don't see a problem.
>>>
>>> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
>>> quality..
>>>
>>> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x
>>> 10), what do you recommend?
>>>
>>> Any info would be helpful.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Decreasing the quality settings reduces the quality of the result
>> and the amount of information recorded, so you can't go back if you
>> want more without taking a new photo. I suggest you make a set of
>> photos of the same subject at the largest, mid and smallest settings
>> and have them all printed 8x10. I can tell you that I would not use
>> less than your max, but you may be quite happy with the result at
>> 1280x960 (I doubt if many people would be happy with a 640x480
>> printed 8x10).
>> Only you can decide what is right for you. Only your own actual
>> photos will show you want you need.
>
> I'd like to reprise my customary advice:
>
> Always record at the highest possible fidelity. 1GB cards are coming down
> in price, and the ability to generate that life-size hologram of your
> beloved but departed naked mole-rat from a bunch of hi-res pictures isn't
> here yet, but when it arrives, you'll want to be able to take advantage of
> it.
>
> --
> Frank S
>
> "Verbing wierds language."
> —Calvin
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:37:19 AM

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

its_my_dime <its_my_dime@yahoo.com.spam (hold the .spam)> wrote:
> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x 10),
> what do you recommend?
>

Memory is cheap, and you can't get detail back into a low-resolution
photo. You've bought a very nice camera with an exceptional lens. Use
it to its fullest - shoot at the highest resolution and lowest
compression, and spend a few bucks on more memory.

As a rule of thumb, 200dpi is a minimum for good prints, although some
people say 300. Which means for 8x10s you'll want the full resolution of
the camera.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" - HMHB
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:39:57 AM

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

its_my_dime wrote:
> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536,
> 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of TIFF, FINE
> and STANDARD.
>
> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long as I
> stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF combination, I don't
> see a problem.
>
> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
> quality..
>
> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x 10),
> what do you recommend?
>
> Any info would be helpful.
>
> Thanks.

You paid a premium to get a 5MP camera.
To shoot at less than 5MP and FINE wouldn't make much sense.
To print great 8x10s you need as many MP as your camera can capture.
The only advantage to shooting at < 5MP or < FINE would be to save space
on your memory card. That may be a valid reason in some special cases
but certainly not as a standard shooting practice.
You can pick up a quality 512 MB SD card for about $40 and that will
capture about 250 pictures at 5MP/FINE. Go for it and don't look back.
When it's full, burn it to a CD and start over.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 8:53:38 AM

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

its_my_dime wrote:
> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536,
> 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of TIFF, FINE
> and STANDARD.
>
> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long as I
> stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF combination, I don't
> see a problem.
>
> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
> quality..
>
> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x 10),
> what do you recommend?
>
> Any info would be helpful.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
ALWAYS take the pictures at the highest resolution offered. You can
always make the pictures smaller later, you can't recover data not
captured. Use a higher compression if you must, but capture all the
data you can.
Flash cards are cheap these days, and why spend a lot of money on a
vacation if you are going to bring back pictures that are less detailed
than necessary because you didn't spend $20 for a bigger memory card?



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 8:56:30 AM

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

Richard wrote:
> What the hell did you just say????
>
>
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:kdWdnbKhLrGJOiHfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
>
>>Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>
>>>its_my_dime wrote:
>>>
>>>>My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x
>>>>1536, 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of
>>>>TIFF, FINE and STANDARD.
>>>>
>>>>The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long
>>>>as I stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF
>>>>combination, I don't see a problem.
>>>>
>>>>So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
>>>>quality..
>>>>
>>>>As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x
>>>>10), what do you recommend?
>>>>
>>>>Any info would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>> Decreasing the quality settings reduces the quality of the result
>>>and the amount of information recorded, so you can't go back if you
>>>want more without taking a new photo. I suggest you make a set of
>>>photos of the same subject at the largest, mid and smallest settings
>>>and have them all printed 8x10. I can tell you that I would not use
>>>less than your max, but you may be quite happy with the result at
>>>1280x960 (I doubt if many people would be happy with a 640x480
>>>printed 8x10).
>>> Only you can decide what is right for you. Only your own actual
>>>photos will show you want you need.
>>
>>I'd like to reprise my customary advice:
>>
>>Always record at the highest possible fidelity. 1GB cards are coming down
>>in price, and the ability to generate that life-size hologram of your
>>beloved but departed naked mole-rat from a bunch of hi-res pictures isn't
>>here yet, but when it arrives, you'll want to be able to take advantage of
>>it.
>>
>>--
>>Frank S
>>
>>"Verbing wierds language."
>>—Calvin
>
>
>
He meant that you may not know now just how you might want to use a
photograph in the future. Capturing all the data possible will give you
extra flexibility in what you can do with the image in the future.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 11:04:44 AM

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

its_my_dime wrote:
> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x
> 1536, 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of
> TIFF, FINE and STANDARD.
>
> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long
> as I stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF
> combination, I don't see a problem.
>
> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
> quality..
>
> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x
> 10), what do you recommend?

I use the highest resolution 2560 x 1920, and the Standard quality
setting.

You should probably compare the Fine and Standard settings when shooting
the same subject and see if you can tell the difference on maximum sized
prints. If you can't see the difference, there's probably no point in
shooting Fine, although if you have plenty of memory card space, you could
perhaps use Fine, just in case.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:46:41 PM

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

Thank you for your responses.

I now understand the importance of maximum size (2560 x 1920) but what is
the difference between fine (no compression) and standard (with compression)
in terms of picture quality.

How does compression affect the ultimate picture?

Thank you.


"its_my_dime" <its_my_dime@yahoo.com.spam (hold the .spam)> wrote in message
news:1B%ue.26774$IX4.10763@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536,
> 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of TIFF, FINE
> and STANDARD.
>
> The book tells me how many pictures I can get on a card and as long as I
> stay clear of the three highest settings and the TIFF combination, I don't
> see a problem.
>
> So, Questions: What is the trade-off between the size settings and
> quality..
>
> As an amature who doesn't plan large prints (nothing bigger than 8 x 10),
> what do you recommend?
>
> Any info would be helpful.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:57:58 PM

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

its_my_dime wrote:
> Thank you for your responses.
>
> I now understand the importance of maximum size (2560 x 1920) but
> what is the difference between fine (no compression) and standard
> (with compression) in terms of picture quality.
>
> How does compression affect the ultimate picture?
>
> Thank you.

The difference between Fine and Standard is the amount of compression -
neither are uncompressed. Standard will show more JPEG artefacts, and you
may, or may not, be prepared to live with that. Unfortunately, the only
way to know is to try it with some typical images yourself, as it's a
subjective effect. For me, printing at 10 x 8 inches maximum, Standard
compression is acceptable (using the maximum resolution).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 7:18:29 PM

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

"its_my_dime" <its_my_dime@yahoo.com.spam (hold the .spam)> wrote in message
news:1B%ue.26774$IX4.10763@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536,
> 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of TIFF, FINE
> and STANDARD.
>


So, please pardon one more question. If you have to make a choice between
either a smaller size or more compression, which is preferable....a smaller
size (2048 instead of 2560) OR more compression ...going from fine to
standard.

In other words, which gives better quality ... 2560 and standard or 2048 and
fine?

Thanks again.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 7:18:30 PM

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

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:18:29 GMT, "its_my_dime"
<its_my_dime@yahoo.com.spam (hold the .spam)> wrote:

>
>"its_my_dime" <its_my_dime@yahoo.com.spam (hold the .spam)> wrote in message
>news:1B%ue.26774$IX4.10763@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> My new Panasonic FZ 20 offers picture sizes from 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536,
>> 1600 x 1200 , 1280 x 960 and 640 x 480 with quality settings of TIFF, FINE
>> and STANDARD.
>>
>
>
>So, please pardon one more question. If you have to make a choice between
>either a smaller size or more compression, which is preferable....a smaller
>size (2048 instead of 2560) OR more compression ...going from fine to
>standard.
>
>In other words, which gives better quality ... 2560 and standard or 2048 and
>fine?
>
>Thanks again.
>

David has the right answer - try it yourself, and see.
Different cameras have different compression characteristics - one
camera's "fine" will be different from another camera's "fine."

Here's an easy way to do your own test...
Use something to give the camera the same position for the shots; a
tripod is great, but anything to rest the camera on that is relatively
solid will work.
Using he two parameters you list above - 2560 and standard, and 2048
and fine, take two shots of different secnes/subjects. Whatever you
want; landscapes, portrait, children playing in your back yard,
whatever, but do several different tyoes of scenes.
Then look at the results. Look critically; you're not interested in
the subject, you're looking to see how the camera handled the subject.
Landscapes will be different from portraits, but you're looking for
how well the camera handles flesh tones, white balance, range of light
to dark (dynamic range), color fidelity, noise, sharpness all over the
image, color fringes, and on and on. Pick the parameters that look
best to you.
We can't tell you what to use; that's up to you. The only
photographers who really care what others think are those who take
photos for others.
Myself, I take photos for my wife & I; so I take photos that please
us. It's that's your situation, maybe that's what you should do.
Have fun!

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 7:57:16 PM

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

its_my_dime wrote:
[]
> So, please pardon one more question. If you have to make a choice
> between either a smaller size or more compression, which is
> preferable....a smaller size (2048 instead of 2560) OR more
> compression ...going from fine to standard.
>
> In other words, which gives better quality ... 2560 and standard or
> 2048 and fine?

In my tests, higher resolution and slightly higher compression give better
results than less resolution and less compression. But 2048 to 2560 isn't
a lot of difference, and it depends exactly how your camera compresses -
i.e. the artefacts it introduces.

Best to try a test and see for yourself.

David
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 2:29:20 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> its_my_dime wrote:
> []
>
>>So, please pardon one more question. If you have to make a choice
>>between either a smaller size or more compression, which is
>>preferable....a smaller size (2048 instead of 2560) OR more
>>compression ...going from fine to standard.
>>
>>In other words, which gives better quality ... 2560 and standard or
>>2048 and fine?
>
>
> In my tests, higher resolution and slightly higher compression give better
> results than less resolution and less compression. But 2048 to 2560 isn't
> a lot of difference, and it depends exactly how your camera compresses -
> i.e. the artefacts it introduces.
>
> Best to try a test and see for yourself.
>
> David
>
>
I would agree with this and add that the effects of compression depend
much on the actual scene. A fact that hints at this is that two
different jpeg images taken at the same settings will be different in
compressed file size.

The main artifacts in jpeg compression are a loss of color fidelity,
especially in areas with gentle gradients. Unless you are really
familiar with what the true colors were, you do not tend to notice this
unless you recompress the image several times, as when you save it in
jpeg while doing several editing sessions on the same image.
!