Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Louise, Mar 26, 2005.

  1. Louise

    ASAAR Guest

    Then that might be the one I read about. The name was the
    _something_ One. If I remember correctly, one drawback was that it
    didn't have a viewfinder.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 29, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Louise

    ASAAR Guest

    Nothing wrong with that. It's the doctors that might need it
    quickly to be used for the next patient that might cause problems by
    reaching into places where the sun don't shine.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 29, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    My understanding is that it will work with any WiFi setup. Perhaps I
    misread. If it wouldn't work on my wireless internet system, it
    wouldn't be of much use to me.
    Worse, yet, you have to retrieve it for them!
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 29, 2005
    #23
  4. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    We are talking about bytes to write. I have read a lot of comments
    about slow writing of RAW and .TIFF files to flash media. I assume that
    if you buy a $1500 camera, it will write fast enough to make the 80x
    flash cards worthwhile, but that is still only about 5 megabytes/sec.,
    and there is a bit of overhead to consider as well.
    In ANY case, RAW will take several times as long as a .jpg to write to
    the card, and .TIFF even longer than RAW. Many users seem to consider
    these delays limiting.
    And, of course, you get to change cards more often as well.
    I also understand that when reviewing RAW files, there can be more delay
    than with .jpg files.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 29, 2005
    #24
  5. Louise

    Bruce Uttley Guest

    I noticed a comparable jpg size difference between images taken
    on the Canon 300D and a Sony DSC-P5. The 300D images were consistently
    50% larger. I downloaded a trial version of PhotoMan from
    http://homepages.tesco.net/~Keith.Sheppard/photoman/home.htm
    and discovered the Canon images contained a lot of filler following
    the headers and image data.

    I used Irfanview's "JPG - Lossless Transformations" with the "NONE"
    setting to effectively optimize and clean the data. Afterward the
    size of the Canon 300D jpg images were approximately the same size
    as the Sony images.
     
    Bruce Uttley, Mar 29, 2005
    #25
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.