Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D5200
Normal vs. Fine quality
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 177214" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>OK then, but as for shooting JPG.... The camera default for JPG is Large Fine. Because it is the best choice of JPG, so maybe leave it alone? </p><p></p><p>Hypothetically speaking: Maybe if you are certain you will never crop or print whatever image you end up with, and if without exception, you certainly will ONLY resample it smaller for ONLY video showing, and Never Ever anything else, then maybe it would not be totally unreasonable to consider Medium image size... maybe. If you're sure one of the next ones won't be the prize winner, or your favorite. Medium Fine is a smaller image, and a smaller file, but not crummy image quality, just smaller.</p><p></p><p>But we spent at least several hundred dollars on a good camera and lenses, with the goal of better images. What possible benefit would less image quality serve? That is simply wrong headed. Yes, it may be a smaller file to store, but we cannot see it when in the file. When we open the file into computer memory, Fine quality was none too good.</p><p></p><p>If a small image size, or less quality for a smaller file size, is actually important, then really, only consider doing that operation (later resample it smaller, and save as crummy JPG quality then, for archiving) only after you have first seen the Large Fine image (which can always be discarded), after you can better judge its future potential. This is one additional save as JPG (more JPG artifacts), as would be any crop or resample operation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 177214, member: 12496"] OK then, but as for shooting JPG.... The camera default for JPG is Large Fine. Because it is the best choice of JPG, so maybe leave it alone? Hypothetically speaking: Maybe if you are certain you will never crop or print whatever image you end up with, and if without exception, you certainly will ONLY resample it smaller for ONLY video showing, and Never Ever anything else, then maybe it would not be totally unreasonable to consider Medium image size... maybe. If you're sure one of the next ones won't be the prize winner, or your favorite. Medium Fine is a smaller image, and a smaller file, but not crummy image quality, just smaller. But we spent at least several hundred dollars on a good camera and lenses, with the goal of better images. What possible benefit would less image quality serve? That is simply wrong headed. Yes, it may be a smaller file to store, but we cannot see it when in the file. When we open the file into computer memory, Fine quality was none too good. If a small image size, or less quality for a smaller file size, is actually important, then really, only consider doing that operation (later resample it smaller, and save as crummy JPG quality then, for archiving) only after you have first seen the Large Fine image (which can always be discarded), after you can better judge its future potential. This is one additional save as JPG (more JPG artifacts), as would be any crop or resample operation. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D5200
Normal vs. Fine quality
Top