Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,939
- Location
- USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
A post above states: "Fine is smallest file size Basic is larger again with Normal being the largest"....uh....that is not the normal, standard progression of file compression. Perhaps your camera offers multiple options as far as the degree of compression and image capture SIZE, in pixels??
FINE= the least-compressed JPEG
Normal=significantly more image compression is applied
BASIC-in Nikon-speak, has the absolute highest degree of JPEG compression applied to the capture, and produces the smallest file storage size.
FIne,normal,and basic are not images "sizes" per se, but rather, the degree of compression applied to the data; many companies offer an Extra-Fine level, which creates a very gently compressed JPEG image, and uses up a lot of card space.
One thing Nikon has been known for since the days of the original 'affordable' d-slr camera is excellent image appearance on its small and medium-compression level images.
Different cameras offer different combinations of compression levels, which is what Fine/Medium/Basic are--they are the degrees of COMPRESSION of the image. The image's on-screen SIZE, in terms of pixel width, is another matter entirely. The options available to the photographer vary wildly from camera to camera; it is possible to shoot a Fine-compression (meaning not very compressed), JPEG-Medium size, which looks superb when some in-camera-sharpening is applied. The degree of in-camera sharpening is usually adjustable by the photographer as well: setting the sharpening to Medium-High on a JPEF Fine, Large-size image may very well produce a DRAMATICALLY different appearance than applying the same Medium-High sharpening level to a Basic-compression (highly compressed data), Small-sized image.
I only point these differences out because of the assertion above that I see as indicative of some confusion about the settings being used in the original comparison; perhaps it was a typo, perhaps not, but the comments regarding the size of the files are not in agreement with my experience. As Kerbouchard touched upon above, JPEWG images can be quite,quite good. The exact "right" combination of compression level, capture size, and in-camera sharpening, tone curve, and in-camera saturation can produce some quite amazing JPEG images straight out of the camera--if the settings match the shooting situation, and the user is well-versed in his or her camera's individual JPEG Engine and how it works.
FINE= the least-compressed JPEG
Normal=significantly more image compression is applied
BASIC-in Nikon-speak, has the absolute highest degree of JPEG compression applied to the capture, and produces the smallest file storage size.
FIne,normal,and basic are not images "sizes" per se, but rather, the degree of compression applied to the data; many companies offer an Extra-Fine level, which creates a very gently compressed JPEG image, and uses up a lot of card space.
One thing Nikon has been known for since the days of the original 'affordable' d-slr camera is excellent image appearance on its small and medium-compression level images.
Different cameras offer different combinations of compression levels, which is what Fine/Medium/Basic are--they are the degrees of COMPRESSION of the image. The image's on-screen SIZE, in terms of pixel width, is another matter entirely. The options available to the photographer vary wildly from camera to camera; it is possible to shoot a Fine-compression (meaning not very compressed), JPEG-Medium size, which looks superb when some in-camera-sharpening is applied. The degree of in-camera sharpening is usually adjustable by the photographer as well: setting the sharpening to Medium-High on a JPEF Fine, Large-size image may very well produce a DRAMATICALLY different appearance than applying the same Medium-High sharpening level to a Basic-compression (highly compressed data), Small-sized image.
I only point these differences out because of the assertion above that I see as indicative of some confusion about the settings being used in the original comparison; perhaps it was a typo, perhaps not, but the comments regarding the size of the files are not in agreement with my experience. As Kerbouchard touched upon above, JPEWG images can be quite,quite good. The exact "right" combination of compression level, capture size, and in-camera sharpening, tone curve, and in-camera saturation can produce some quite amazing JPEG images straight out of the camera--if the settings match the shooting situation, and the user is well-versed in his or her camera's individual JPEG Engine and how it works.