Resolution & Compression

[Mckymousefn]

I have my camera set at 1280x960 right now with compression at 1/12. If i move the resolution up to say... 1600x1200 or 2560x1920, should i leave my compression the same or change it as well?

 

[Mckymousefn]

Anyone???

 

[GrillMouster]

Have a little patience. Only an hour had passed from the time you originally posted your question to your second post, "Anyone???".

As for your question, the answer depends on what size you plan on printing and how much cropping you plan on doing. Higher resolution will allow you to print at larger sizes and it also allows you more leeway for cropping, so you can still have have enough pixels for a small print. Higher compression reduces the quality of the image, introducing artifacts. These artifacts are most apparent zoomed in on-screen and at larger print sizes, such as 8x10, but are less noticeable at smaller print sizes, such as 4x6. You could always try photographing a subject using different compression settings, then comparing the resulting prints to determine your acceptable level of compression for that print size.

The primary value of using lower resolution or higher compression is to decrease the file sizes of your images, so that you can fit more pictures onto a memory card. I see this as a non-issue, because the current cost of memory is so low. I'd much rather have the best image possible, so when I use a P&S, I always use the highest resolution and the lowest compression. Set it and forget it.

My wife used to change the camera's resolution and compression settings to photograph things that she just wanted to email family and friends. Two things would always happen:
1) she's forget to change the settings back, so when I went to take that one-in-a-million shot, my image would be ruined.
2) she'd later decide that she wanted to print an image she took, but the resulting print was poor in quality due ot the low resolution and high compression.
I eventually convinced her to leave the camera set to the highest quality settings and use software on the computer to shrink the images for email (two clicks of the mouse is all it takes).

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I agree. Always use the lowest compression (highest quality) and highest resolution all the time. Memory is cheap. The only exception that I can think of is if you needed to shoot a rapid burst of pictures and your camera allowed you to shoot more pictures faster if you reduced the resolution and/or the compression.

 

[Mckymousefn]

Have a little patience. Only an hour had passed from the time you originally posted your question to your second post, "Anyone???".

As for your question, the answer depends on what size you plan on printing and how much cropping you plan on doing. Higher resolution will allow you to print at larger sizes and it also allows you more leeway for cropping, so you can still have have enough pixels for a small print. Higher compression reduces the quality of the image, introducing artifacts. These artifacts are most apparent zoomed in on-screen and at larger print sizes, such as 8x10, but are less noticeable at smaller print sizes, such as 4x6. You could always try photographing a subject using different compression settings, then comparing the resulting prints to determine your acceptable level of compression for that print size.

The primary value of using lower resolution or higher compression is to decrease the file sizes of your images, so that you can fit more pictures onto a memory card. I see this as a non-issue, because the current cost of memory is so low. I'd much rather have the best image possible, so when I use a P&S, I always use the highest resolution and the lowest compression. Set it and forget it.

My wife used to change the camera's resolution and compression settings to photograph things that she just wanted to email family and friends. Two things would always happen:
1) she's forget to change the settings back, so when I went to take that one-in-a-million shot, my image would be ruined.
2) she'd later decide that she wanted to print an image she took, but the resulting print was poor in quality due ot the low resolution and high compression.
I eventually convinced her to leave the camera set to the highest quality settings and use software on the computer to shrink the images for email (two clicks of the mouse is all it takes).

Thanks & the reason i reposted asking "anyone", was because i was going to work and was going to be taking my camera with me and was hoping to get an answer before i left. I wasn't trying to rush "just because".

 

[Groucho]

I say, always set your camera to the highest-quality settings possible. Otherwise, you're just throwing quality away.

After our last trip, I discovered that my sister-in-law had her 6mp camera set to only 1600x1200 - needless to say, the photos that my wife took with her identical camera set to the full 6mp were much easier to work with!

 

[Mckymousefn]

My highest resolution setting is 3200x2400. Right now with it being set at 1280x960 & 1/12 compression. If i move it to 3200x2400, what compression should i do? 1/8, 1/4, 1/2.7 or keep it at 1/12?

 

[boBQuincy]

Set it to whatever is listed as the best quality/least compression. Compression throws away data, and it can never be recovered. High compression leaves artifacts that are readily visible.

 

[GrillMouster]

My highest resolution setting is 3200x2400. Right now with it being set at 1280x960 & 1/12 compression. If i move it to 3200x2400, what compression should i do? 1/8, 1/4, 1/2.7 or keep it at 1/12?

The resolution and compression settings are completely independent of each other. You don't have to change one because you change the other. It's not like the relationship between aperture and shutter speed (and ISO) to get an equivalent exposure. There is not a compression level that you "should" use for a given resolution. As many have already suggested, use the highest resolution and the lowest compression and be done with it.

I just noticed that you list the compression settings of your camera in the following order: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2.7, 1/12
Is that last one supposed to be 1/12 or 1/1.2? If it's 1/12, then it should come before 1/8 in order from lowest quality to highest quality. If it's supposed to be 1/1.2, then it's in the correct order after 1/2.7 and it would be the highest quality setting. Assuming that 1/12 is correct, then logic tells me that on your camera, 1/12 is the highest compression setting (lowest quality) and 1/2.7 is the lowest compression setting (highest quality). You can verify this by taking a picture of the same scene at each of the two settings, then comparing the images at 100% on your monitor. It should be obvious from the artifacts (especially in the sky) which setting is the best and which is the worst. Or, you can just look at the file sizes; the best will be the larger file size.

 

[Mckymousefn]

Here is what the table says in the manual. But i am really now learning some of the technical stuff... so this is one thing i wasn't sure about, but this is what the manual says ~

Resolution
3200x2400
Compression ~ File size
1/2.7 ~ 6.2
1/4 ~ 4.4
1/8 ~ 2.4
1/12 ~ 1.8

Hope this helps you know which compression sizes i have on my camera. But i have moved my resolution up from 1280x960 to 3200x2400

 

[Master Mason]

1/2.7 ~ 6.2

Winnaaaaa

this is the most detail you can get, you should set it here.

 

[Groucho]

Yup, you want the largest files possible.

What kind of camera is this? I'm amazed that they'd use such confusing terminology. Usually it's "fine, medium, low" or similar. "1/2.7" is definitely not a standard jpeg compression term.

 

[Mckymousefn]

I have an Olympus E500. Love the camera... just have to learned all the technical stuff.

Thanks!

 

[MassJester]

I've been shooting a lot of images in RAW format recently. On an 8gb card I can manage almost 750 images which I think gives me plenty of room for a day in the park.

I also have the option for RAW + large format JPEG but that knocks me down into the 300s. Still probably plenty of room, but I haven't found a good reason to record the image twice in the different formats while shooting.

 

[Groucho]

I've been shooting a lot of images in RAW format recently. On an 8gb card I can manage almost 750 images which I think gives me plenty of room for a day in the park.

I also have the option for RAW + large format JPEG but that knocks me down into the 300s. Still probably plenty of room, but I haven't found a good reason to record the image twice in the different formats while shooting.

There are plenty of reasons to shoot RAW, but I won't get into that topic again.

I don't bother with Raw + jpeg, though. I stick with just raw. Besides, the ability to process a photo from raw to jpg in-camera is slowing becoming more common, in case you absolutely positively have to have a jpg immediately for whatever reason.