two resolutions at once?

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

<gf@naturalproperties.com> wrote in message
news:1121817096.851914.202350@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I shoot mostly in low resolution to email for business however
> sometimes I shoot something I wanted at higher resolution and forget to
> change the setting. I heard some cameras like Sony maybe shoot a higher
> setting and an email setting at same time. I am looking for new camera
> , is that true?
>

Yes, it's true. You are looking for a new camera.

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

On 19 Jul 2005 16:51:36 -0700, gf@naturalproperties.com wrote:

> I shoot mostly in low resolution to email for business however
> sometimes I shoot something I wanted at higher resolution and forget to
> change the setting. I heard some cameras like Sony maybe shoot a higher
> setting and an email setting at same time. I am looking for new camera
> , is that true?

You're missing a big point. The primary advantage to shooting in
low resolution is to be able to fit a huge number of pictures on a
moderately sized memory card. If you get a camera that shoots in
both high and low resolution, it will negate that advantage, so
whether you use such a camera or one that only allows one resolution
at a time, you'll have to set the camera to high resolution anyway.

If you forget about the ability to take multiple resolution
pictures simultaneously, you'll have a much wider choice of cameras,
and may well be able to get a better camera than if you limit your
choice to a subset. You might even decide to keep your current
camera and set it to take high resolution shots all the time. Then,
using any number of programs, including the free Irfanview, you can
have it easily batch process the image files, creating the low
resolution pictures you need for your business email. Of course if
you're looking for an excuse to get a new camera, unread what you
just read.

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:53:55 GMT, CFB wrote:

> My Canon D300 has a setting that shoots in raw and jpeg (big, definatly
> big enough for email) at the same time. It really does not take up that
> much extra space on a 1 GIG card.

I'm aware of that and understand that for you, the difference
between (BIG) and (BIG + little) is, well, little. But the OP spoke
of something else altogether. In his case it was the difference
between (little) and (little + BIG), where the difference is BIG.

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

Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> spewed:
> Then your belief is mistaken, my Minolta Xt does not, it does allow me
> to create a low resolution copy suitable for Emailing afterwards;
> since Windows XP will do that automatically I see no point running
> the battery down using the camera controls to do it.

My bad, I meant that I assumed all Sony's have that mode.

--
Visit My Site: http://www.rubbertoe.com

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:49:44 GMT, CFB wrote:

>> I'm aware of that and understand that for you, the difference
>> between (BIG) and (BIG + little) is, well, little.
>
> It seems you misunderstood. He asked if there is a camera that shoots
> two sizes at the same time. I answered his question.

Nope. It's you that failed to understand. Yes, he asked that
question, but I didn't say that such a camera doesn't exist. I said
that even if he gets such a camera it won't provide the benefit that
he thinks he'll get. You then answered ME, not the OP stating that
your camera can shoot at two resolutions simultaneously, high (RAW)
and JPG. You evidently missed the point that I made not once but
twice. Think about what I was getting at with the reference to
"BIG" and "little". From what you said it seems as if you primarily
want to shoot and use RAW image files. You camera also includes a
much smaller JPG file. This is useful to you because your RAW files
are quite large and it's much easier to browse images by loading the
much smaller JPG versions which load much faster. And you're only
adding a small percentage of additional space by including the much
smaller JPG versions of the image.

But the OP has the inverse situation. He primarily wants to shoot
at low resolution, and only occasionally take a high res. picture.
If his low res. images used for email are 100k in size he could take
500 pictures and they'd easily fit on a 64MB card. RAW files are
huge in comparison. If he saved a RAW file with every small JPG
file, that same 64MB memory card might now only be able to hold 4 or
5 shots. So at the very least, he'd have to buy and start using
much larger memory cards with his new camera.

Also, as far as I'm aware many or most cameras can slow down quite
a bit when taking RAW files, so he might be unpleasantly surprised
by additional delays if he takes too many pictures in quick
succession. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that he currently
uses a relatively inexpensive P&S camera and is looking for a
similar P&S camera, even if it costs a bit more, as long as it can
save two resolutions simultaneously. Your recommendation to get a
DSLR might well be a far more expensive solution than he
anticipated. Now I'm not saying that you didn't give the OP the
best advice you're aware of, but one has to be careful when you're
also offering to sell the OP the camera that you're recommending.

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

>>I heard some cameras like Sony maybe shoot a higher
>>setting and an email setting at same time.

I tried really hard, but I just cannot think of any advantage to this. OK,
perhaps it might save you a few seconds of time but the many disadvantages
must surely outweigh that.

There are advantages to only recording a low resolution image if you want to
fit lots of pictures on your card, but if you are recording the high
resolution image why on earth would you want to occupy even more space by
recording a low resolution image as well? If you want to send the picture
by email you can easily generate the reduced resolution image on your PC
using any one of a whole bag of applications.

Similarly someone else mentioned a camera which can generate both a raw and
a jpg image from the same exposure. Again I find myself wondering why?
Does the camera manufacturer think their firmware will do a better job of
converting the raw image to jpg than a PC based application?

I would just ensure that the camera is capable of generating an image which
meets my most demanding quality requirements and discount any options to
produce simultaneous multiple formats when making a purchase decision.

Regards
Keith

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:06:13 GMT, CFB wrote:

>> Yes, he asked that
>> question, but I didn't say that such a camera doesn't exist.
>
> OK. Now you are being weird. I was answering him, not you.

Who is being weird? There are only 3 of your replies in this
thread, and my newsreader's msg. header tree shows that they are all
direct replies to one of *my* messages, not to the OP. Newsreaders
can sometimes get the thread tree wrong, but not here. Every one of
your replies starts with:

> In article <(different message ID here)>,
> ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:



>> From what you said it seems as if you primarily
>> want to shoot and use RAW image files. You camera also includes a
>> much smaller JPG file.
>
> The D300 does not do that. I am sorry. You just do not know the camera.
> Go to canons web site. It uses a THM files for display.

Wrong. You just do not know your own camera. (D300?) Do you
know what THM files are and why they are called THM? That's
THuMbnail. Tiny images 160x120 pixels in size and suitable only for
quickly browsing, either in camera on on the computer. NOT suitable
as an image that could be emailed for business purposes. And guess
what format is used for THM? That's right, they're JPG images. But
the 300D does indeed save smaller JPG files when you it to create
RAW image files. I guess you've never noticed them, but the
resolution used is Middle/Fine.


>> This is useful to you because your RAW files
>> are quite large and it's much easier to browse images by loading the
>> much smaller JPG versions which load much faster. And you're only
>> adding a small percentage of additional space by including the much
>> smaller JPG versions of the image.
>
> it is a THM file that is used to browse, not a JPEG. If I was a raw or a
> tiff and a jpeg BESIDES THE THM I have a setting for that.

The THM files can be used to browse, but some people that don't
want to deal with the much longer loading times of RAW files use the
smaller JPG files for the same purpose. They quickly browse the JPG
files until they find one suitable for loading using the RAW
version. If they have several similar shots, viewing the THM
(thumbnail) wouldn't often provide enough detail to determine which
RAW file to use. The JPG files provide all the detail needed for
the selection.


>> But the OP has the inverse situation. He primarily wants to shoot
>> at low resolution, and only occasionally take a high res. picture.
>
> So what? It's the same thing. Why not let the OP ask?

It's not the same thing but I won't try explaining the difference
again as you either won't try to understand or many not be capable
of understanding the difference.


>> If his low res. images used for email are 100k in size he could take
>> 500 pictures and they'd easily fit on a 64MB card. RAW files are
>> huge in comparison. If he saved a RAW file with every small JPG
>> file, that same 64MB memory card might now only be able to hold 4 or
>> 5 shots.
>
> Then he need a different camera, yes? And that is what he was asking
> about.

No, no, no, stupido. The point was that a different camera might
not be needed at all. That by using his current camera he could get
the same results (with a slight amount of additional computer power)
as he could with a new camera. And that even if he'd like a new
camera, it's presumptious of you to assume not only that he'd want
to splurge on a fairly expensive DLSR, but would want to buy YOURS!


>> So at the very least, he'd have to buy and start using
>> much larger memory cards with his new camera.
>
> A 1 gig card will solve all his problems. And isn't that what he was
> asking about?

No. A 1 gig card could solve all of his problems. I'm glad that
you finally caught on to that much. What you haven't gotten yet is
that another camera isn't needed at all. As he thinks that the
camera that has the dual image file capability is a Sony, it's clear
that whatever type of camera he may have had in mind, it clearly
wasn't a Canon 300D, nor any other high priced DSLR.



>> Also, as far as I'm aware many or most cameras can slow down quite
>> a bit when taking RAW files, so he might be unpleasantly surprised
>> by additional delays if he takes too many pictures in quick
>> succession.
>
> Wow you are so wrong. I would be supprised if there is one high end
> camera that does not shoot RAW. And those cameras shoot far more quickly
> then all P&S.

Amazing. I say that some cameras that shoot RAW files may do
it more slowly and you seem to think that that's the same as saying
that some can't shoot RAW. And you're wrong in that last statement.
At its best, your own 300D shoots RAW files at 2.5 frames/sec, but
can't sustain that rate over long periods because it has to pause
for processing and writing to the memory card if you shoot more than
a handful of pictures. See dpreview for details. My own pokey
little Fuji P&S, though not in RAW, can shoot its highest res.
images faster than that for short bursts. For long bursts, up to 40
frames, it's slightly slower than the 300D, but doesn't pause for
processing or writing, so it may well be faster getting to the end
of 40 shots than the 300D. I'm sure there are faster P&S cameras
than mine, so basically, once again you've put your foot in your
mouth.



>> I also wouldn't be surprised to learn
(inane insult clipped)
>> that he currently
>> uses a relatively inexpensive P&S camera and is looking for a
>> similar P&S camera, even if it costs a bit more, as long as it can
>> save two resolutions simultaneously. Your recommendation to get a
>> DSLR might well be a far more expensive solution than he
>> anticipated.
>
> It was only a recommendation dude. Just one suggestion. ReRead my first
> respnse.

Hmm, yes. A recommendation. Isn't that what I said?



>> Now I'm not saying that you didn't give the OP the
>> best advice you're aware of, but one has to be careful when you're
>> also offering to sell the OP the camera that you're recommending.
>
> Oh, I see. You think I was just out to make a buck. You're a jerk. He
> asked what cameras did that. Mine did. And I happened to be selling it.

No comment needed. <g>


> BTW, what do you shoot with?

Logical bullets. Much more effective than the blanks you use.


>> Don't bother. You win. Bye.

Bye bye.

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:34:03 -0400, Dave C. wrote:

> With my Sony DSC-W5, 5 meg camera, for example, I can take a picture in the
> VGA mode, lowest resolution or any other resolution between VGA mode to 5
> meg. As long as the pictures are still in the camera, there is a feature in
> the display mode that resizes it up or down within the VGA and 5 meg
> resolution. Then is assigns the next number to the to the new image keeping
> the original image in tact.
>
> Just before writing this post, I took a VGA photo and resized it up to 5
> meg. I double checked it to be sure it wasn't faking. Maybe someone can
> explain how it resized it up to a larger size. There is a lot of sortware
> around to reduce the size down after downloading to your computer.

I don't know how the camera does it, but no matter what resolution
the camera is set to, all pictures leave the sensor at the highest
(in your case 5mp) resolution. The only way the camera can boost
smaller res. pictures back up to 5mp is if the full 5mp images were
saved somewhere, either in buffer memory or on your memory card. If
you put an empty 1GB card in the camera and fill it to within 10MB
of its capacity, you might be able to expand one or two pictures to
5mp. in the remaining space. But I think you'll find that you'll
only be able to do this with a very small number of the pictures you
took, probably from the last few pictures. This is because for the
camera hold every one of the pictures you took in their original 5mp
versions, it probably would have needed an addition 4GB or 8GB worth
of card space to use as an "invisible" buffer.

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

In article <42e0a1a4.0@paperboy.c4.net>, Dave C.
<c9ar9dar9elli@9c4.n9et> writes
>With my Sony DSC-W5, 5 meg camera, for example, I can take a picture in
>the VGA mode, lowest resolution or any other resolution between VGA
>mode to 5 meg. As long as the pictures are still in the camera, there
>is a feature in the display mode that resizes it up or down within the
>VGA and 5 meg resolution. Then is assigns the next number to the to
>the new image keeping the original image in tact.
>
>Just before writing this post, I took a VGA photo and resized it up to
>5 meg. I double checked it to be sure it wasn't faking. Maybe someone
>can explain how it resized it up to a larger size.

Perhaps it guessed what might have been between the detail you recorded.

>There is a lot of sortware around to reduce the size down after
>downloading to your computer.

Throwing detail away is quite easy, just taking the average of groups of
pixels and creating one pixel from the group will do it.

>I take most all my pictures at 1 meg then if there are any pictures
>that I want to print 8x10, I will resize it up to 5 meg.

Why bother, your print driver can put blobs between the detail you have
recorded, probably better than software which has no knowledge of the
printer, not even the size you are going to print. I use the highest
resolution, and down size if the need for smaller files outweighs the
need for detail.

--
Ian G8ILZ

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:05:08 GMT, Keith Sheppard wrote:

> I do wonder how much time is really saved. My camera can shoot either raw
> or jpg. I don't recall any particular delays presenting images when I
> choose the former.

Your camera may be different than others. Perhaps it's saving
more than you realize, or is working hard (faster processor) that
could cost more in reduced battery life. Or maybe it's taking a
reasonable amount of time displaying RAW images but is slower at
displaying JPG images than it should be. What camera do you use?


> It's amazing isn't it. No so many years back most of us were happy to wait
> a couple of days for our photos to come back from the processors. Now we
> are worried about whether we can see them in one second or three.

You seem to be straining to minimize any advantage of cameras that
save more than just RAW images. If a camera can save a second or
two when browsing from one picture to the next, then if hundreds of
pictures are on the card and you want to review an earlier picture,
it may save not seconds, but minutes of wasted time. If you think
that this should be no concern since we once had to wait days to see
the pictures taken, then you might not mind other delays, such as a
camera that forces you to wait 5 or 10 seconds between shots. Most
people would consider these delays to be very objectionable.
Canon's use of embedded THM files seems to be an excellent solution
for in-camera browsing.

Their 'pro' cameras can save RAW and high-res. JPG images
simultaneously, but do it in a different manner, saving the RAW
images on one card and the JPG images on a second card. This is
useful as a backup to minimize the loss of pictures when a card is
removed, for whatever purpose. This is a concern not just for
'pros', as a number of P&S users have expressed concern about loss
of images. One example is the suggestion often seen in the ng to
not "put all of your eggs in one basket". That is, they recommend
that you buy and use several small cards instead of one large card
to protect you from losing too many images if a card fails.


>> Because a camera can present a JPG image for review on its LCD much
>> faster than a RAW image thus allowing you to quickly determine what to
>> re-shoot and what to ditch.
>
> OK, but even if it produces a jpg (presumably in memory) for expediency, I
> don't see why it needs to commit that image to long term storage on the
> memory card.

Some people prefer saving both RAW and moderate sized JPG files to
the card because it only slightly reduces the number of shots that
can be stored on a card, but allows much quicker browsing of
pictures on the computer. The small JPG images load much quicker
than RAW files, and can save a *lot* of time when trying to find a
particular image. Thumbnails can be even quicker, but often don't
provide enough resolution to distinguish between similar shots.