posted on December 24, 2000 08:46:58 AM
Well, after reading time and time again from everybody here how wonderful the Sony Mavicas are, I decided to celebrate my new job and buy one as a present for myself. I got the MVC-FD85, in case anyone is curious, and I paid just under $600 for it [I hope that is a decent price].
Overall, I love it! The picture resolution is wonderful, it takes great closeup ["macro"] shots and does wonders with available light [no more waiting for just the right amount of sunlight for me!].
My one complaint, though, is that all the pictures are automatically stored as jpegs on the floppy disk, and I don't seem to have any control over the compression ratio. I always like to fiddle with my pics a bit after taking them [cropping, color adjustment, etc.], and when I save the compressed image a second time things get a little blurry. My old digital camera didn't have the resolution of the mavica and didn't work well in low light situations, but it did store all pictures as bitmaps, which meant that there was no image degradation due to compression.
Anybody else run into this problem? Any suggestions?
Oh -- and Happy Holidays, everyone!!!
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on December 24, 2000 08:51:50 AM
"I always like to fiddle with my pics a bit after taking them [cropping, color adjustment, etc.], and when I save the compressed image a second time things get a little blurry"
SOLUTION: Do NOT edit JPGS. It is a "lossy" compression format and every time you edit, save, and reopen you lose details.
Use a graphics conversion program to change them to TIF or BMP and edit that all you want. Then save as JPG with the compression you want and upload.
posted on December 24, 2000 08:52:23 AM
It's not a problem. JPG's are much smaller, and if you use even the mid-range resolution you'll still have a VAST improvement in comparison with your previous ... efforts.
posted on December 24, 2000 09:27:27 AMabacaxi: Yes, I realize that jpegs are lossy. The problem is that the pictures start out as jpegs, which means the compression has already occurred. Even if I convert them to bitmaps to to my editing, I still have to save them back to jpeg when I am done in order to have a reasonable file size. I wouldn't have to do that last step if these pictures were for personal use, but for eBay I need them in jpeg format.
krs: I suspect you're right and I am being overly sensitive. But I just don't like the "blotchy" effect I am seeing with the doubly compressed images. the resolution is incredible, but still....
Here's a link to a picture I just shot, cropped and resaved:
Hopefully you're correct and the dramatically increased reolution will make up for the image degradation.
reamond: Well, that's exactly the type of thing I was looking for, but darned if I can find it on my camera. Mine has options for text, voice, e-mail and normal [which is jpeg], but nothing for bitmap. Maybe I should have sprung for the FD90 after all....
Thanks for the responses!
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Dec 24, 2000 09:28 AM ]
posted on December 24, 2000 10:03:40 AM
Godzillatemple,
Just a thought from someone who shops auctions (that's the point, right?). I know very little about photography, (I only have a scanner for auctions!) but your picture looks great to me. The detail and clarity is excellent. If I was looking for something to bid on, that picture would definitely be more than enough for me to make a decision. Just thought ya might like ta know!
posted on December 24, 2000 10:12:04 AM
godzillatemple, could you decrease the amount of compression you're using when you save the image after you "fiddle" with it?
posted on December 24, 2000 10:20:30 AMBaileejean: Thanks. As I said before, maybe I am just being overly sensitive about the picture quality. If nobody else notices, I guess it doesn't really matter.
Glenda: Actually, I tried that. it works, but then the image ends up being significantly LARGER than the one I started with. You'd think saving it with minimal compression would just keep the file size the same, but it actually comes close to doubling it, going from about 30K to over 50K. I suppose 50K isn't TOO bad for the sake of clarity, but I tend to use a lot of pictures and I know people with slow modems [like me] don't like to wait for the pics to download. But it is certainly an option. I was just hoping that somebody could tell me how to change the compression setting on my Mavica [or change it to bitmaps]. Apparently, this CAN be done on some models, but not on the FD85. Ah well, it's still a great camera...
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on December 24, 2000 10:23:33 AM
Barry,
I don't use compression at all, other than what is characteristic of the format. The posted picture looks good, and you might be able to improve it with a lowering of color saturation. That should tone of the gold highlights and give a more realistic image, assuming that the gold ISN'T really quite so bright.
posted on December 24, 2000 10:45:02 AMkrs: I'm not sure what you did, but your version actually looks MORE blotchy to me. I'm guessing it's just another example of compressing a compressed image. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "that should tone of the gold highlights", but I actually film my gold items against a red background specifically to enhance the gold tone. I also fiddle with the color saturation abit to bring it out even more, mostly to compensate for the indoor lighting. The mavica does wonders with low light situations, but the color isn't always accurate.
If you'd care to see the rest of the pics I took of this watch, go here:
posted on December 24, 2000 10:55:34 AMPocono: Yes, it is clearer. I can achieve the same effect by sharpening the image using my standard graphic program [not to mention holding the camera steadier, giving it more time to auto-focus, etc.] But it is also a lot more blotchy, and that's the part I am trying to avoid.
As with everything, I guess there's a certain tradeoff, and I just need to decide which is the lesser of the two evils....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on December 24, 2000 11:00:14 AM
Well, Barry, to tell you the truth, I don't see blotchyness in your original image at all. When I said what I did about goldtone I meant that perhaps that was the brand of your m0niter. LOL! Or is it Goldstar? My mistake.
posted on December 24, 2000 11:01:15 AM
I know this is a radical thought - but I would go read the manual very carefully and completely if I had spent that much $ for a nice piece of equipment.
posted on December 24, 2000 11:14:59 AM
Not sure if it will help with the specifics that concern you but checkout the free program "JPEG Optimizer" at www.xat.com
posted on December 24, 2000 11:18:24 AMgravid: Er, yes. Believe it or not, I turned to the wonderful folks here at AW as a last resort, not a first. The manual doesn't help on the subject.
I'm off to meet the family for the Holidays. Thanks again for all the comments!
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on December 24, 2000 11:37:00 AM
A careful reading of the manual will also reveal the paragraph that prohibits saying anything that might be even remotely construed as negative about the camera.
Any continuation of that behaviour will subject you to having someone come and remove the camera from your possession.
Sorry, but SONY ownership is not for everyone. With it comes certain responibilities and standards of conduct.
Read previous threads to garner the essence of what is now expected of you.
posted on December 24, 2000 12:22:04 PM
Check this image:
It was a Sony, hand held, at 640x480 FINE resolution, MACRO mode, converted to TIFF for editing (small amount of cropping) and the ALL-IMPORTANT "unsharp mask" to sharpen the details ... it makes the resulting image compress better for arcane mathematical reasons yuo don't need to know).
Image ended up at 22KB
And this one shrunk to a mere 23K with no blotchiness
posted on December 24, 2000 12:57:53 PM
Pocono - An attempt at a little very dry humor. We Sony owners are a touch fanatical about it being a great auction tool.
posted on December 24, 2000 01:44:55 PM
Barry, nice watch. I bought a $499 Mavica and was not happy with it. Large single-color areas (like white walls) appeared splotchy. I returned the camera and got a Kodak DC-201+ ($489( that CNet recommended (www.computers.com).
I really think the Kodak is better overall (better color, anyway), but I must admit after seeing so many Mavica photos in these forums that the DETAIL is much better on the Sony. My camera has only 2X zoom, it needs more. I suspect that you're not going to get the quality you really want unless you spend a couple thousand on a top-line model.
Kodak saves in FPX (FlashPix) format which is a bitmap I guess. It's Kodak's native format and so there is support for it in some photo editors (like IrfanView, Corel PhotoPaint and LivePix).
If you're thinking about buying a new camera, there are some excellent comparison reviews at www.computers.com.
posted on December 24, 2000 02:41:16 PM
Hey all lets have a little competition with our cameras and see who can take the best pic without making any changes to it at all and then state what we use.
How about we all use a quarter I may even start a new thread as that as a heading what do you think
posted on December 24, 2000 03:46:02 PM
OK everyone. Here is the real load down.
When I started shopping for a camera I did do alot (I MEAN ALOT !) research as to which camera took the best pictures.
I tried several Sony models (I do love Sony as almost every single electronic item I have in my home is a Sony), BUT I was very dissapointed in the picture quality of their digital cameras. I then tried Kodak and though the picture quality was an improvement over Sony, I thought I could find better.
The best quality pictures I have found to be taken by a digital camera are those taken by Ricoh cameras.
Ricoh's are AWESOME quality and reasonably priced for a digital camera if you are looking for quality pictures.
posted on December 24, 2000 08:09:42 PMabacaxi: I was following just fine until you got to the bit about the "unsharp mask" used to sharpen the image. Shouldn't something called "unsharp" soften the image?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on December 24, 2000 08:22:01 PM
OK, this one is for Adrian. I didn't crop it, adjust the brightness or anything. This is with my Mavica FD85 using the macro feature for extreme closeup.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on December 24, 2000 11:36:27 PM
Try this site for some basic Mavica "helps"...[url]http://www.mavican.com/support.html
[/url]
The best advice I have had is to just take a LOT of pics, of the same item with different settings/lighting/exposures, and compare them all...it's not like you have to pay for the film!!!
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
posted on December 25, 2000 07:31:14 AM
All image editing programs convert the image to a raw format for editing. When the image is saved the program coverts it back to Jpeg. My guess is that the compression ration is set for to low quality in the S/W you are using. CHekc the file size, if they are much smaller after minor editing then this is true. Get a different program that will allow you to set the compression ration for Jpeg saves.
