posted on January 5, 2001 06:56:18 PM new
franko122, au contraire..
I use GIFs and have very good luck with my images, they come out clear, colorful and sharper than JPGs.
I love using GIF.
IMHO
posted on January 5, 2001 07:52:54 PM new
GIF's are great, as long as you don't need more than 256 colors. I use them all the time for illustrations, but I find they don't work so well with photographs....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on January 6, 2001 12:12:57 AM newBarry
Just a guess here, (since we are still VERY successfully using the FD-7) The "fine" setting mentioned above is probably the "1152x864" setting....
I have a question for th knowledgeable tho.....
I like to move my pics from a floppy to my HD for editing to make things move quicker....If I move them BEFORE I convert to TIFF, am I loosing quality with that ONE manuever(sp){that just doesn't look right}?
Thanks!!
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
posted on January 6, 2001 04:57:11 AM new
ubiedaman -
COPY does nothing to any file. It's the open/edit/save cycle that kills a JPG.
godzillatemple -
The FD85 is supposedly HIGHER res and quality than my FD83 ... I think you are missing something on the setup menus that is screwing up your images. I'll be running errands today and I'll check one out.
posted on January 6, 2001 06:34:22 AM new
OK, in lieu of getting dressed, having a shower, eating breakfast, etc., I've been sitting here all morning with my camera trying to figure out what the heck is going on. And I have finally come to the following conclusion: the fault lies neither with the camera nor with my operation of it. The problem is the damn SOFTWARE!
Let me explain....
I have noticed that the images I recorded at higher resolution (1024x760) seemed a bit less lossy than those recorded at 640x480. Presumably this is the Fine vs. Normal distinction people are talking about with other Mavica models. However, these pictures are way too huge for my use, and when I shrunk them down with my standard graphics program [LviewPro], all the lines got rather jagged. Well, I just discovered that resizing works a lot better if I actually use a REAL graphics program like Adobe Photoshop -- no more jagged lines!
But here's the real kicker -- I just discovered that all the photos I've looked at only look "lossy" when viewed in Netscape. When I looked at the same images in Explorer, they look just fine! Which expains, I guess, why people were saying they didn't think my photos looked that bad when I showed some in my earlier Mavica thread....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Jan 6, 2001 06:37 AM ]
posted on January 6, 2001 07:05:27 AM new
"I have noticed that the images I recorded at higher resolution (1024x760) seemed a bit less lossy than those recorded at 640x480. Presumably this is the Fine vs. Normal distinction people are talking about with other Mavica models."
Nope, that is image size, which does affect the ability to capture fine detail. Under the FILE section of the menu, I have REC MODE (normal or email .. email is really squished and lossy from the start) QUALITY (here is the STANDARD versus FINE choice, which probably controls initial compression when the image is written to the floppy) and IMAGE SIZE (640x480, 1024x768, and 1216x912)
I usually use NORMAL, FINE, and 640x480 for anything headed for online (72 DPI) or a technical manual coming off a laser printer (300dpi).
posted on January 6, 2001 07:31:19 AM newabacaxi: Well, then it looks like I'm out of luck. The FD85 does have a "File" menu, and it even has a "Rec Mode" submenu to select between "Text", "Voice", "E-Mail" and "Normal". But there is NO submenu labeled "Quality". I've got "Rec Mode", "Image Size", "File Number" and "Disk Tool", but no "Quality".
Drat.
I wonder why they would have removed this feature? I mean, the FD85 is supposedly a better model, right? It certainly COST more.....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on January 6, 2001 07:35:27 AM new
That's a good point, Abacaxi. Quality and resolution are usually different settings. I can get up to 15-18 pics on my 4 MB memory card, taken in 1152 x 864 mode. Each individual photo varies from 250 to 400 Kb depending on color content. If the Mavica is getting 30 photos on a standard floppy, that does sound pretty squished. I agree with you though that if a JPG is saved with no compression, there is little loss of quality. But then you're stuck with big file sizes again. The problem with JPGs is that once you "finalize" the image, you can't edit it again. I have this problem with Kodak Picture CDs. High-resolution JPGs look good, but you can't edit them much. Resize them down, that's about it.
BTW, a really good option for developing 35mm photos is the Kodak Photo CD (PCD). That's a different format from the Picture CD. Photo CD files are big, up to several megabytes each. The quality is excellent. Photo CDs are pretty expensive, like $50 for 36 photos on a CD, but if you want really good quality digital photos try a Kodak Photo CD.
