|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2002 09:19:27 AM · #26 |
| Do to the antiquity of my PC (Windows 95) I am going through a lot of changes just getting my files on it. From what I am reading in this great forum, I am losing valuable picture quality through my process. Would you please clarify this for me? I first take my flash card reader on my laptop and copy the original JPEG to a CD with an external CD burner. I can then take them to my PC for further processing. I know I should update from Windows 95 on the PC, which would enable a USB port, so I could go direct from the camera or card. How much am I losing with my jury-rigged set up? |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 09:49:05 AM · #27 |
you did't put LOL or a :-) after your posting Magnetic - are you serious???
Vin
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
has anyone noticed that if you over-compress an image of anything to do with the beatles or john lennon, the compression artifacts seem to be spelling 'lucifer is our master'?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 09:53:13 AM · #28 |
; )
Originally posted by vin rigby:
you did't put LOL or a :-) after your posting Magnetic - are you serious???
Vin
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 09:59:35 AM · #29 |
Autotool, I'm no expert, but I don't think you loose anything by copying your file from place to place to place, no matter what format it is. You loose information everytime you SAVE a file as a .jpg. So, in theory, if you took a .jpg file and saved it as a .jpg 3x, you'd get degradation 3x. That's why people are telling you to save your original as .tif (even if the original is a .jpg) so you can then save it as often as you want w/out degradation. Then, when all your editing is done, convert it to .jpg again, and that one time degradation you can usually live with, especially if you use little compression and keep your file at a decent size.
Originally posted by autool:
Do to the antiquity of my PC (Windows 95) I am going through a lot of changes just getting my files on it. From what I am reading in this great forum, I am losing valuable picture quality through my process. Would you please clarify this for me? I first take my flash card reader on my laptop and copy the original JPEG to a CD with an external CD burner. I can then take them to my PC for further processing. I know I should update from Windows 95 on the PC, which would enable a USB port, so I could go direct from the camera or card. How much am I losing with my jury-rigged set up?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 10:33:57 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by gr8photos:
Autotool, I'm no expert, but I don't think you loose anything by copying your file from place to place to place, no matter what format it is. You loose information everytime you SAVE a file as a .jpg. So, in theory, if you took a .jpg file and saved it as a .jpg 3x, you'd get degradation 3x. That's why people are telling you to save your original as .tif (even if the original is a .jpg) so you can then save it as often as you want w/out degradation. Then, when all your editing is done, convert it to .jpg again, and that one time degradation you can usually live with, especially if you use little compression and keep your file at a decent size.
Originally posted by autool:
[i]Do to the antiquity of my PC (Windows 95) I am going through a lot of changes just getting my files on it. From what I am reading in this great forum, I am losing valuable picture quality through my process. Would you please clarify this for me? I first take my flash card reader on my laptop and copy the original JPEG to a CD with an external CD burner. I can then take them to my PC for further processing. I know I should update from Windows 95 on the PC, which would enable a USB port, so I could go direct from the camera or card. How much am I losing with my jury-rigged set up?
[/i]
gr8photos, Thanks, I think I got the picture now. RP |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 04:27:18 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by autool:
I first take my flash card reader on my laptop and copy the original JPEG to a CD with an external CD burner. I can then take them to my PC for further processing. I know I should update from Windows 95 on the PC, which would enable a USB port, so I could go direct from the camera or card. How much am I losing with my jury-rigged set up?
You aren't loosing anything by copying your .jpg's from your flash card to a CD, as a matter of fact that's probably the safest way to safeguard the qulality of your images--you can't overwrite them by mistake on a CD. It never hurts to copy files, you're just sloshing bits around. Where the trouble comes in is when you save an image. When an imaging program opens a .jpg file, it computes the original file length from the compresed one. If it always opens the same file, the results will be essentially the same every time. When you save, the program recomputes the compression on top of the previously compressed file, adding to the degredation. Also, before you upgrade to ad USB you should find out if the card reader you're thinking about will work. A few will only work with original equipmet USB ports, not added cards.
On another point, the JPEG compression algorythms used by modern digital cameras (say the current and last generation) are vastly better than the earlier ones. For all intents and purposes there's no difference in quality between .tif and the highest quality .jpg unless you're cropping deep into the negative and really pushing the resolution bounds of the image, then you'll see some artifacting along high contrast boundries.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 04:57:52 PM · #32 |
most of my pics can just be compressed into a ball using my hands and thrown in the trash. . .once in a while I get a good one, though.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:36:10 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:36:10 PM EDT.
|
