5060 compression question

[ron_goodenow]

My Oly 5060 has several of the somewhat usual resolution settings,

including RAW, TIFF, SHQ, HQ, and SQ1 and 2 -- all in ascending order

of compression. I am curious to know why the 1600x1400 setting in SQ1

produces larger files than the 2592x1944 setting in HQ, a lower

compression setting??? I would have thought just the opposite.

 

Are there any inherent advantages or disadvantages of using this SQ1

setting?

For printing?

 

Thanks much.

 

Thanks. Working my way through this great camera.

[phule]

<< I am curious to know why the 1600x1400 setting in SQ1 produces larger files than the 2592x1944 setting in HQ, a lower compression setting??? >>

 

Are you shooting the exact same scene?

[ron_goodenow]

Rob:

 

Yes, and, where I first noticed it, my 512 card shows lower photo capacity with the lower compression setting! The difference in file size is basically 1.08 per snow scene in HQ vs 1.30 in SQ1. The photos themselves seem very detailed and clean, as does virtually everything taken with this camera regardless of setting.

[phule]

<a href="http://olympusdigitalschool.com/cameras/c-series/c-5060_wide_zoom/C-5060_Photo_Resolution_and_Printing/index.html">http://olympusdigitalschool.com/cameras/c-series/c-5060_wide_zoom/C-5060_Photo_Resolution_and_Printing/index.html</a>

<p>

Take a look at Chart 2 on that page.

<p>

Based on the chart I would say that you are looking at a feature, not a bug. This appears to be how the camera software was designed.

[ron_goodenow]

Rob:

 

Thanks very much. I'm still a bit thick on this. I had seen the chart, but was mainly curious about why they would design the camera this way. At the end of the day it would seem that I am slightly better off shooting at this SQ setting, or is there something in the overall compression algorithm which still would make a large print inferior to one made in HQ? Thoughts welcome. And, I had not seen the Oly site, which I will now pour over. Amazing how we learn things....

[phule]

<< At the end of the day it would seem that I am slightly better off shooting at this SQ setting, >>

 

Well, to be honest, I would never shoot at SQ or HQ. I'd shoot at SHQ 2592x1944 most of the time and RAW for specific needs.

 

You can always reduce the images but you can never get back that information once it's gone.

 

Buy some bigger cards and shoot large. :)

[ron_goodenow]

Rob:

 

For ordinary shooting I do use the SHQ setting, and I have lots of cards. However, there are times when I head out on very long trips without my subnote (eg. foreign travel) and am not entirely sure when and how I am going to make backups, not yet having one of those digital wallet type devices. Since about 95% percent of what I want to do is not going to be printed (and I generally have a feeling as I am about to shoot what I may want to print at 8x10 max and adjust accordingly), and since I don't want to overly burden my creaking hard drives I like to consider options. Incidentally, I have done a number of resolution tests (albeit of a home made kind!) and find the difference between HQ and SHQ on this camera are pretty hard to find, something that Wrotniak reported as well. I've made some stunning prints from HQ, with lots of detail, etc. Anyhow, thanks for your ideas and an opportunity for me to lay some things out.

[phule]

I'm sure you have been able to make quite stunning prints and perhaps in the end that's all that matters. But for me, I just have this...feeling, I guess, that shooting at a lower resolution is going to come back and bite me. Maybe it's unfounded, but for me, I feel more comfortable with shooting at the highest quality my digital camera offers. Now, I must clarify this a bit because my digital camera is only a 4MP Canon A80.

 

The most traveling I've done with my digital camera has been a 9 day trip, hardly a decent test of storage unless you look at how many photos I actually take (answer: a lot :) I don't own a laptop or portable backup device, but during the trip I was blessed with both internet access and CDR access therefore could download and backup my images. For future vacations in which I will be shooting digital, my plan is to include both as much as possible. That will probably lead me to purchase a portable backup unit.

 

I would highly recommend looking into either: internet access when you are traveling (via internet cafe) and/or a portable backup CDROM or hard drive type device. Even if you choose to shoot at the lower resolutions or higher compressions it is a good idea to backup when you're on the road.

[ron_goodenow]

Rob:

 

Your last point is very well taken. I know that internet cafes in Europe and South America are now offering cd burning services. Another option which I may try on my next trip is to go to one of those places and dump images onto my 512 USB flash card or my MP3 player, which has a 10gig hard drive. Another thing I do try to do is edit while traveling. The 5060 allows for basic cropping and then, if the work is only going to be used on the web, saving at 650x...And, of course, the cropped images are smaller. One of the nice features of the 5060 is that it holds two cards, one a CF (or microdrive) and the other an xD card. One thing I have tested is backing up those pictures I really care about on to the xD card and then leaving that in my hotel shaving kit or my wallet. I've had cameras robbed in New York and London and am pretty sensitive to the need for backup. Incidentally, I always bring a backup camera on these trips, in this case an Oly 560, which itself, though 'only' 3 megapix, produces excellent results. I also use it in places where I want to be unobtrusive because the 5060 is a moose. One of my hobbies is railway photography and the last thing I want to do is draw any more attention to myself than necessary because rent-a-cops here and abroad like to crawl all over photographers, regardless of the local laws.

 

Fortunately, the cost of CF cards is plummeting and ultimately even more than I have will probably be the best solution, though the number increases the likelihood of losing or damaging one....There is no end to possible problems....sigh.