Digital camera ?

[mont86]

On my digital camera..there is a function to set resolution and compression..Once I set the resolution I have to pick a compression?

What is the difference?

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by mont86

On my digital camera..there is a function to set resolution and compression..Once I set the resolution I have to pick a compression?

What is the difference?

Resolution refers to the picture size, and thus the numbers of pixels used to make the image. Each pixel takes up a certain amount of space, thus the more pixels you use, the bigger the file size. So when sssmokin takes pictures of his girlfriends with his 10 megapixel camera set at its highest resolution (3648 x 2736), and saves them in an uncompressed (RAW) format, the file will be 30MB in size. That's a big file. An uncompressed 640 x 480 file will be 923KB. Much smaller, but still won't fit on the pages of Shottalk. Max filesize here for a .jpg file is 19.5KB. So what is poor sssmokin to do? Compression.

Compression is a term used to describe a mathematical operation that looks at all the pixels in an image and figures out which ones are unique and which ones in an area are similar. Once it plots the position and color information of the unique pixels (such as the wart at the tip of her nose) it then stores information about pixels that are similar (such as the models' vast expanses of flesh rotting in the noonday sun). But it doesn't need to store information about each pixel of the similar regions. It only needs to know that there are thousands of pixels within a region that are the same. It "compresses" the pixel information into a formula that, when read by the viewer software, will re-create the similar pixels. So an image with a lot of similar pixels (like a close-up of sssmokin's girlfriend's grandmother's giant ass) will compress a lot, since there are a lot of the same looking pixels. The close-up of her teeth? Not so much, since the contrasting areas of decay, pubic hair, cheese mites, cancer, and leftover pizza create many different unique pixels that can't be compressed.

Hope this helps.

As for digital cameras, I use the least compression possible (called "superfine" on my Canon) and then adjust the resolution to control the filesize. If I set the resolution high I can create a very large image. I don't usually need to do that, so I keep the resolution set lower (usually 1600 x 1200). Professional photographers generally save RAW images, which are the highest resolution and lowest compression possible. This is because they need every bit of pixel information they can get.

[Pa Jayhawk]

Yeah, what Eracer said, but if you want to avoid the image of SSmokin's Girlfriends Grandmother, you could say that Resolution is basically the size of the image, and compression is the detail of the image based on the size you choose. So if you want a big picture with a smaller file size, you can use a different compression at the expense of some image detail. So while an 8x8 section of pixels will still take up 64 pixels, if you make them all the same color that is a combination of the original 64 colors, you can do so with a smaller file size because it has less information to store.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Pa Jayhawk

Yeah, what Eracer said, but if you want to avoid the image of SSmokin's Girlfriends Grandmother, you could say that Resolution is basically the size of the image, and compression is the detail of the image based on the size you choose. So if you want a big picture with a smaller file size, you can use a different compression at the expense of some image detail.

Come on, Jayhawk. My convoluted, overly wordy, technobabble is much less comprehensible and thus more interesting. You and your concise expanation can find a tall metal span and allow the gravitational attraction of the Earth's mass to move you along the curvature of space-time such that you contact the HO2 below...

[clemsonhacker]

Eracer what canon do you have? we have the SD700is and freaking love it.. excpet the fact Canon has it right now fixing the flash on it..

[Pa Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Eracer

Come on, Jayhawk. My convoluted, overly wordy, technobabble is much less comprehensible and thus more interesting. You and your concise expanation can find a tall metal span and allow the gravitational attraction of the Earth's mass to move you along the curvature of space-time such that you contact the HO2 below...

Yeah, I also forgot we are also talking about Monte. At least from what I have seen on here he may be able to us a run for our money on Twisted and Convoluted. So while he may be interested in Ssmokin's girlfriends grandmothers @$$, so it is a good attention getter, you want to keep him on track with the conversation and not let him wonder to far in that direction or he would be lost for good.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Pa Jayhawk

Yeah, I also forgot we are also talking about Monte. At least from what I have seen on here he may be able to us a run for our money on Twisted and Convoluted. So while he may be interested in Ssmokin's girlfriends grandmothers @$$, so it is a good attention getter, you want to keep him on track with the conversation and not let him wonder to far in that direction or he would be lost for good.

True...true.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by clemsonhacker

Eracer what canon do you have? we have the SD700is and freaking love it.. excpet the fact Canon has it right now fixing the flash on it..

I had the 7MP A710IS and sold it to a friend to buy the G7. In all honesty, I like the A710IS better. The G7 is a little bit too big to fit in the pocket comfortably, and I liked the fact that the 710 could use AA batteries in a pinch.

I also have Rebel XT with a nice lens. If I had to do it over I would have sprung the extra $$$ for the 20D. I really like the Rebel XT though. For an MSRP of <$500 it can't be beat. Add a couple of nice lenses and sssmokin's girlfriends will never look worse.

[mont86]

LOL..You guys are killing me...After reading this fore times, it is starting to sink in...kinda of...lol....And do getta kick out of ssmokins girlfriends.

I finally met someone with more problems then me!

[dave.]

Ez

I am upgrading to the Lumix LX2, but before I do, what was that Canon you were referring to?

[dave.]

To late, gone for a Lumix FX33

[shankexpert]

Originally Posted by Eracer

I also have Rebel XT with a nice lens. If I had to do it over I would have sprung the extra $$$ for the 20D. I really like the Rebel XT though. For an MSRP of <$500 it can't be beat. Add a couple of nice lenses and sssmokin's girlfriends will never look worse.

I've got the 20D and love it. For pocket-sized cameras I think Sony has some of the best, but for DSLRs Canon gets my vote.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by shankexpert

I've got the 20D and love it. For pocket-sized cameras I think Sony has some of the best, but for DSLRs Canon gets my vote.

What lenses are you using? Which one's do you like? Dislike?

[Rockford35]

Originally Posted by clemsonhacker

Eracer what canon do you have? we have the SD700is and freaking love it.. excpet the fact Canon has it right now fixing the flash on it..

I have the SD900 Ti Elph. The picture is takes for a point and shoot are astonishing.

R35

[shankexpert]

Originally Posted by Eracer

What lenses are you using? Which one's do you like? Dislike?

I'm totally an amateur, but my bag is as follows:

Canon EFS 18-55mm Macro
Sigma 70-300mm
Canon 24-85mm
420ex Speedlite
handful of filters

I've had the opportunity to use a 16-35mm and would love that lens, but it would cost more than my entire bag.

None are really worthy of being called a favorite. I use the camera mostly for stationary automotive shots as I'm a big car nut.