Compression question

[Ron]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My Oly 5060 has a set of the somewhat usual Raw, TIFF, SHQ, HQ, SQ1,
and SQ2 options.

Here's my question:

Why would SQ1 1600x1200 in the high as opposed to the normal position
turn out larger files than my usual setting 2592x1944 in the HQ
position? Was doing some testing today and was quite taken with the
difference in file size. Are there, then, inherent advantages (or
disadvantages) to shooting at this SQ1 position? In terms of print
quality, overall sharpness, etc. ????????? I'm trying to figure out why
they make this particular option available.

Thanks.

 

[Marvin]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron wrote:
> My Oly 5060 has a set of the somewhat usual Raw, TIFF, SHQ, HQ, SQ1,
> and SQ2 options.
>
> Here's my question:
>
> Why would SQ1 1600x1200 in the high as opposed to the normal position
> turn out larger files than my usual setting 2592x1944 in the HQ
> position? Was doing some testing today and was quite taken with the
> difference in file size. Are there, then, inherent advantages (or
> disadvantages) to shooting at this SQ1 position? In terms of print
> quality, overall sharpness, etc. ????????? I'm trying to figure out why
> they make this particular option available.
>
> Thanks.
>
The more compression, the greater the chance that there will be some artifacts in the image. Whenever I've bought a new
digicam, I've domne a series of tests at different compression levels, and choose the level of compression just less than
where I begin to see artifacts.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron wrote:

> My Oly 5060 has a set of the somewhat usual Raw, TIFF, SHQ, HQ, SQ1,
> and SQ2 options.
>
> Here's my question:
>
> Why would SQ1 1600x1200 in the high as opposed to the normal position
> turn out larger files than my usual setting 2592x1944 in the HQ
> position? Was doing some testing today and was quite taken with the
> difference in file size. Are there, then, inherent advantages (or
> disadvantages) to shooting at this SQ1 position? In terms of print
> quality, overall sharpness, etc. ????????? I'm trying to figure out why
> they make this particular option available.
>
> Thanks.
>

Hi...

SQ = Standard Quality - quite high jpeg compression.
SHQ = S(omething) High quality. Much lower compression.

Ken

 

[Ron]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks guys. I've been doing digital photography for years and
understand the differences, but want to know why files at seemingly
higher compression would be larger than those at lower compression??????
I would have expected smaller and lower quality ones.



Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
> Ron wrote:
>
>> My Oly 5060 has a set of the somewhat usual Raw, TIFF, SHQ, HQ, SQ1,
>> and SQ2 options.
>>
>> Here's my question:
>>
>> Why would SQ1 1600x1200 in the high as opposed to the normal position
>> turn out larger files than my usual setting 2592x1944 in the HQ
>> position? Was doing some testing today and was quite taken with the
>> difference in file size. Are there, then, inherent advantages (or
>> disadvantages) to shooting at this SQ1 position? In terms of print
>> quality, overall sharpness, etc. ????????? I'm trying to figure out
>> why they make this particular option available.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> Hi...
>
> SQ = Standard Quality - quite high jpeg compression.
> SHQ = S(omething) High quality. Much lower compression.
>
> Ken
>
>
>