Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

jgredline · 08-25-2009, 12:59 PM

Hi Folks,
How many of you that shoot jpegs use the high setting? I shoot all jpegs (no raw for me) but just noticed there is a higher setting than the default. I tried it, but could not see a difference. Am I missing something?

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-25-2009, 01:04 PM

I shoot all the time on maximum quality, but to be honest I have not tried to evaluate the difference between maximum quality and one step down, but I do not ethe file size is cut in half, and that says something about loss of data.

jgredline · 08-25-2009, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I shoot all the time on maximum quality, but to be honest I have not tried to evaluate the difference between maximum quality and one step down, but I do not ethe file size is cut in half, and that says something about loss of data.

Oh, so maximum quality means more data? I have not noticed image size, but will do so. Thanks

Arpe · 08-25-2009, 05:28 PM

IMAGE size is the same.
FILE size is different.

danielchtong · 08-25-2009, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

Oh, so maximum quality means more data?

I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though.
That is the way how jpg works

Daniel

jgredline · 08-25-2009, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Arpe

IMAGE size is the same.
FILE size is different.

Yes, I know this. I should have been more clear

jgredline · 08-25-2009, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by danielchtong

I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though.
That is the way how jpg works

Daniel

Thanks Daniel, this makes sense. I shot a few pics like this today, but have not looked at them yet.

WheresWaldo · 08-25-2009, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by danielchtong

I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though.
That is the way how jpg works

Daniel

Not 100% accurate, without mentioning that the compression is lossy. In other words it is not like ZIP vs. RAR. The more you compress a JPEG the more information you simply throw away. JPEG images degrade with higher levels of compression. Compressed RAW files retain all the information that a non-compressed RAW file has.

egordon99 · 08-27-2009, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by danielchtong

I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though.
That is the way how jpg works

Daniel

Not when the compression is LOSSY

Two kinds of compression exist; LOSSLESS is like using WinZip to zip up a bunch of Word files. You're able to unzip the Word files and you have not lost ANY data.

LOSSY actually tosses out data that can NOT be retrieved. JPGs (generally) use LOSSY compression as does mp3 for audio files.

bdery · 08-27-2009, 11:56 AM

I tested it a bit...

If you post-process a LOT, you might find a gain by using the highest quality (I believe the ratio of compression is about 1:2, which means half the data of a RAW file). Second best is 1:4 again IIRC. For the record usually the values for P&S are 1:8 through 1:32... by default.

I have never seen the need for the highest setting, and many reviewers also think that way.

jgredline · 08-27-2009, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by bdery

I tested it a bit...

If you post-process a LOT, you might find a gain by using the highest quality (I believe the ratio of compression is about 1:2, which means half the data of a RAW file). Second best is 1:4 again IIRC. For the record usually the values for P&S are 1:8 through 1:32... by default.

I have never seen the need for the highest setting, and many reviewers also think that way.

i to have been testing of late and have found the same thing as you have. Will know more in a few more days.

08-25-2009, 12:59 PM	#1
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Jpeg shooters, I have a question Hi Folks, How many of you that shoot jpegs use the high setting? I shoot all jpegs (no raw for me) but just noticed there is a higher setting than the default. I tried it, but could not see a difference. Am I missing something?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Maybe Canon shooters are more hardcore shooters than the rest after all	jaieger	Photographic Technique	32	02-13-2011 05:04 PM
K-x jpeg vs raw high iso question	barondla	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	08-12-2010 02:39 PM
Hello, a question regarding RAW vs. JPEG	Nanthiel	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	11	12-25-2008 06:00 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
Possibly Silly question about shooting JPEG	bwield	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	12-09-2008 07:21 PM

08-25-2009, 01:04 PM	#2
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,892	I shoot all the time on maximum quality, but to be honest I have not tried to evaluate the difference between maximum quality and one step down, but I do not ethe file size is cut in half, and that says something about loss of data.

08-25-2009, 02:02 PM	#3
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I shoot all the time on maximum quality, but to be honest I have not tried to evaluate the difference between maximum quality and one step down, but I do not ethe file size is cut in half, and that says something about loss of data. Oh, so maximum quality means more data? I have not noticed image size, but will do so. Thanks

08-25-2009, 05:28 PM	#4
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	IMAGE size is the same. FILE size is different.

08-25-2009, 06:43 PM	#5
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by jgredline Oh, so maximum quality means more data? I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though. That is the way how jpg works Daniel

08-25-2009, 07:37 PM	#6
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by Arpe IMAGE size is the same. FILE size is different. Yes, I know this. I should have been more clear

08-25-2009, 07:38 PM	#7
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by danielchtong I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though. That is the way how jpg works Daniel Thanks Daniel, this makes sense. I shot a few pics like this today, but have not looked at them yet.

08-25-2009, 09:49 PM	#8
WheresWaldo Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 498	Originally posted by danielchtong I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though. That is the way how jpg works Daniel Not 100% accurate, without mentioning that the compression is lossy. In other words it is not like ZIP vs. RAR. The more you compress a JPEG the more information you simply throw away. JPEG images degrade with higher levels of compression. Compressed RAW files retain all the information that a non-compressed RAW file has.

08-27-2009, 08:31 AM	#9
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Originally posted by danielchtong I would rather say max quality means less compression . Data should be the same but with more compression it is more scrambled though. That is the way how jpg works Daniel Not when the compression is LOSSY Two kinds of compression exist; LOSSLESS is like using WinZip to zip up a bunch of Word files. You're able to unzip the Word files and you have not lost ANY data. LOSSY actually tosses out data that can NOT be retrieved. JPGs (generally) use LOSSY compression as does mp3 for audio files.

08-27-2009, 11:56 AM	#10
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,363	I tested it a bit... If you post-process a LOT, you might find a gain by using the highest quality (I believe the ratio of compression is about 1:2, which means half the data of a RAW file). Second best is 1:4 again IIRC. For the record usually the values for P&S are 1:8 through 1:32... by default. I have never seen the need for the highest setting, and many reviewers also think that way.

08-27-2009, 12:54 PM	#11
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by bdery I tested it a bit... If you post-process a LOT, you might find a gain by using the highest quality (I believe the ratio of compression is about 1:2, which means half the data of a RAW file). Second best is 1:4 again IIRC. For the record usually the values for P&S are 1:8 through 1:32... by default. I have never seen the need for the highest setting, and many reviewers also think that way. i to have been testing of late and have found the same thing as you have. Will know more in a few more days.

Jpeg shooters, I have a question

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!