Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 167417" data-attributes="member: 12496">Why do you need to limit image size?&nbsp;&nbsp; Just to save file storage space?&nbsp;&nbsp; A one terabyte external disk drive is not that expensive now.&nbsp; Why compromise image quality?You do have choices.&nbsp; The camera menus allows you set Size of the JPG images, and/or also their Quality.&nbsp; There are these two properties.D3100 images can be 14 megapixels (large).Three size choices, Large,&nbsp; Medium or Small.Large will easy print 11x17 inches or more, and even Small will still print a fine 5x7 inch print (if you don't crop much).Quality is Fine, Medium, or Basic.&nbsp;&nbsp; Normally, a reasonable goal is &quot;as good as possible&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Best JPG is really none too good.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why should we aim for less?&nbsp;&nbsp; But if we can't appreciate this advantage, we have choices.D3100 manual page 187 shows typical file sizes for these choices.Large is 4608x3072 pixels, or about 14 megapixels, which is x3 RGB data, or about 40 MB before compression.Page 187 says Fine compresses it to 6.8 MB, or to 17% of uncompressed size.&nbsp; That is already quite awesome compression.Normal goes to 3.4MB, or to 8%.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, that is about the minimum limit that is acceptable for JPG.&nbsp; Even best JPG suffers a little.&nbsp; Here is a look at JPG compression quality:<a href="http://www.scantips.com/basics09b.html" target="_blank">What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?</a>You really don't have to suffer lower quality.&nbsp; Who aims for lower quality?&nbsp;&nbsp; If file size is a problem, and you're sure you won't need large prints, then maybe try Small size.&nbsp; If you're sure... there is no going back if you end up with your prize image, it's too late then.&nbsp; An alternative is to resample them smaller later (for archiving), after you're sure you won't want larger.&nbsp;But Small will print 5x7, and is still larger than your monitor screen.&nbsp; Seems like it can at least it can be good quality though.&nbsp;&nbsp; If I had your goals, I would limit size, but not quality.&nbsp; But my own notion is why limit it at all?&nbsp; If you really don't much care about your images, just buy a little compact camera or a cell phone.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 167417, member: 12496"] Why do you need to limit image size? Just to save file storage space? A one terabyte external disk drive is not that expensive now. Why compromise image quality? You do have choices. The camera menus allows you set Size of the JPG images, and/or also their Quality. There are these two properties. D3100 images can be 14 megapixels (large). Three size choices, Large, Medium or Small. Large will easy print 11x17 inches or more, and even Small will still print a fine 5x7 inch print (if you don't crop much). Quality is Fine, Medium, or Basic. Normally, a reasonable goal is "as good as possible". Best JPG is really none too good. Why should we aim for less? But if we can't appreciate this advantage, we have choices. D3100 manual page 187 shows typical file sizes for these choices. Large is 4608x3072 pixels, or about 14 megapixels, which is x3 RGB data, or about 40 MB before compression. Page 187 says Fine compresses it to 6.8 MB, or to 17% of uncompressed size. That is already quite awesome compression. Normal goes to 3.4MB, or to 8%. IMO, that is about the minimum limit that is acceptable for JPG. Even best JPG suffers a little. Here is a look at JPG compression quality: [URL="http://www.scantips.com/basics09b.html"]What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?[/URL] You really don't have to suffer lower quality. Who aims for lower quality? If file size is a problem, and you're sure you won't need large prints, then maybe try Small size. If you're sure... there is no going back if you end up with your prize image, it's too late then. An alternative is to resample them smaller later (for archiving), after you're sure you won't want larger. But Small will print 5x7, and is still larger than your monitor screen. Seems like it can at least it can be good quality though. If I had your goals, I would limit size, but not quality. But my own notion is why limit it at all? If you really don't much care about your images, just buy a little compact camera or a cell phone. [/QUOTE]

Verification