flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Rediculous?

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I just got a new camra for my trip to france starting tomarrow, so just before i left i thought i'd post some of the specs on a picture i took before i left for a week or two. Anyway, tell me if you think this is pointlessly huge or not...

PICTURE:
-2560 by 1920 pixels (I can't get my computer screen to even half that resolution)
-868 KB (889,425 bytes - Jpeg compression, not png but still)

CAMRA:
-About 2.5 inch screen...
-Zoom is 12 times
-Red-eye reduction
-A bunch of fancy quality options
-A/V TV port

I feel as if this was supposed to take military survailence photos, not to be a simple $85 camera. Anyone else think that this is over kill?
Post 09 Jul 2007, 22:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:

-2560 by 1920 pixels (I can't get my computer screen to even half that resolution)
-868 KB (889,425 bytes - Jpeg compression, not png but still)
Anyone else think that this is over kill?


YES

Overkilled resolution, and then trash it with JPG Crying or Very sad

It's optimized for fools not knowing than JPEG is lossy Shocked

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 09 Jul 2007, 22:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Such high resolution is good for better zooming than optics allow.

You take 2560x1920 picture, and cut 800x600 picture from it. Nice digital zoom without loss of quality Wink
Post 09 Jul 2007, 22:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
well, with a res this big i don't have to worry about loosing things in compression, but the files themselves are huge. Luckily, i have a 2 gig in here. 2476 photos is the estimated number that i can take at this res. Luckily, i can take it down to 640 x 480.... But daaaaaaang... I can't say much for the audio, though, for the recorded audio seems a bit.... messy... Sounds like there's a fly caught in there with the mic buzzing around.
Post 09 Jul 2007, 22:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
vid wrote:
Such high resolution is good for better zooming than optics allow.

You take 2560x1920 picture, and cut 800x600 picture from it. Nice digital zoom without loss of quality Wink


I think it keeps the resolution that high even when zoomed in... but i havn't tried it yet. Though, alot of people are complaining about how high the resolution is when i send them links... XD
Post 09 Jul 2007, 22:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
if you use built-in digital zoom on your photo, it's equivalent of cutting the smaller image out of big one, and using some algo to stretch image... really stupid thing to do, unless there is some extra optical data that can be used in process.

Otherwise, you can do same thing later and better on computer.
Post 10 Jul 2007, 00:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
When you take high-res pics make sure that they really are better than lower ones and not simply low-res pics scaled internaly by the cam. The camara I had was able to take pictures at 648x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 but the latter ones was just scaled versions of 648x480 pics. It is very important to know that highest configurable resolution does not necessarily matches with the max CCD resolution.
Post 10 Jul 2007, 01:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
if you use built-in digital zoom on your photo, it's equivalent of cutting the smaller image out of big one, and using some algo to stretch image... really stupid thing to do, unless there is some extra optical data that can be used in process.


The first one i bought (lower specs) randomly quits working for me. I go get a new one (better specs) but the screen was broken when i got it, so i return it and get the same kind, without the screen broken (what i have now). So, i don't put it past them to have intellegence, especially because you have to install software to use the thing, but the same software isn't required for usb interface... it installs the worthless program with the drivers.

Quote:
Otherwise, you can do same thing later and better on computer.


Which is what i should do, and shall... But the zoom comes in handy if i'm trying to take something quick or to see how shakey some one is.

Quote:
When you take high-res pics make sure that they really are better than lower ones and not simply low-res pics scaled internaly by the cam.


It's really difficult for me to tell, for i am having trouble taking the exact same picture twice, but i wouldn't be overly surprised that some resolutions are, but looking at some of these, you can't take stuff this high res with a 640x480 res. That would get pretty pixely by the time you got to 2560 x 1920...

Quote:
It is very important to know that highest configurable resolution does not necessarily matches with the max CCD resolution.


Indeed true... Thanks to aliasing, we can find out by zooming in on mspaint... Though, it may be possible for the reverse. Sometime you might end up with a camera where it can take higher res pics than the software side can handle.

EDIT: I did a check, oddly enough, the clearest resolution is not the highest resolution. When i zoom in all the way after uploading the photos from my camera, the clearest resolution is 2560 x 1920. I went back and checked that the highest resolution is 3072 x 2304. Though, the color is slightly higher in the other resolutions, but when i did the text reading test, it distinguished between letters alot better under the second lowest (default) resolution.
Post 10 Jul 2007, 02:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:

PICTURE:
-2560 by 1920 pixels (I can't get my computer screen to even half that resolution)

There should be a few larger resolutions there if your cam is up to date with new technology. The point is not even to present it on the screen... The point is CCD itself is usually very poor quality (GRAINY in semi-dark environments) and you typically can't get a proper shot of what you're trying to take a picture of, so you will end up cropping the picture and resizing it to get that lost quality back.

The more megapixels it has, the more options you have in that area.

kohlrak wrote:

-868 KB (889,425 bytes - Jpeg compression, not png but still)

PNG compression doesn't do much on real-life images (unlike screenshots). JPEG, albeit lossy, compresses things much better there. You might want to recompress your images in JPEG progressive encoding and a low loss ratio.

Cams don't do that because it's too complicated.

kohlrak wrote:
CAMRA:
-About 2.5 inch screen...


All good, the more, the better you'll be able to notice that you made a blurry image because your cam did not agree on what you focused it on.
kohlrak wrote:

-Zoom is 12 times


If this is optical zoom then this is great. If it is digital zoom, it's useless.

For example taking a shot of the moon with optical zoom of 3x or so, like my cam tends to do, will make you end up with a tiny blurred blob in the middle of the picture. With 12x zoom, you'd probably be able to see the mountains on the surface of the moon.

kohlrak wrote:

-Red-eye reduction
-A bunch of fancy quality options


Either standard or you may never use them. They are there for people who think their cam is better the more special effects it has. As I recall, most of them are utterly and completely pointless if you have any sort of graphics editing tool other than MSPAINT on your computer.

kohlrak wrote:
-A/V TV port


Composite plug... useful thing if you want to show your pictures to somebody who doesn't have a computer. Tho be warned that the quality of the picture on a standard analog TV is a little less than that 2,5 inch LCD on the cam.

In other words, you probably won't see a thing.

kohlrak wrote:
I feel as if this was supposed to take military survailence photos, not to be a simple $85 camera. Anyone else think that this is over kill?


Not at all. If the overall quality of these things were good I guess I'd agree, but this way you just make up for the downsides with the upsides.
Post 10 Jul 2007, 09:06
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
So, i don't put it past them to have intellegence, especially because you have to install software to use the thing, but the same software isn't required for usb interface... it installs the worthless program with the drivers.


I suggest you opt for the un-obvious alternative: Get a memory card reader, and then when you want to take off the pictures, take the memory card from the cam (it's usually in with the batteries) and plug it into the card reader.

These files are in standard fromat (actual FAT + JPEGs on the memory card) and thus read nicely with a computer. Also the handling is easier (it's like a CD... you plug it in it's there... and when you no longer need it you just take it out) and no software is required, short of the cardreader's driver if your BIOS doesn't support it already.

To me the best advantage here was the point that you can transfer images when the cam's batteries are dead.
Post 10 Jul 2007, 09:22
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:

Overkilled resolution, and then trash it with JPG Crying or Very sad

It's optimized for fools not knowing than JPEG is lossy Shocked


I wonder if you realize that JPEG supports different levels of compression (and thus quality loss)? Or perhaps you know a lossless codec that achieves image file sizes in the same range as JPEG? Rolling Eyes

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 10 Jul 2007, 11:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
f0dder wrote:
I wonder if you realize that JPEG supports different levels of compression (and thus quality loss)? Or perhaps you know a lossless codec that achieves image file sizes in the same range as JPEG? Rolling Eyes


I doubt cameras use any particularly nonstandard format. I bet they use lossy format, tho it's sometimes possible to select how lossy. Newer cameras around the era of 2 GB flash drives produce substantially better JPEG imho.

I could see JPEG artifacts in my photos (relatively new, 6 megapixel)... the thing is that photos don't usually contain content that is hard to compress in JPEG.
Post 10 Jul 2007, 11:11
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
DustWolf: I was just annoyed that NTOSKRNL basically says JPEG sucks, without even trying to give a decent alternative... a decent camera these days in high-quality setting doesn't produce that bad JPEG artifacts (especially not if you're going to downsample your image after editing).

And if you can't live with tiny artifacts, well, you're probably using a digital SLR camera capable of TIFF and/or RAW, anyway.
Post 10 Jul 2007, 11:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
If this is optical zoom then this is great. If it is digital zoom, it's useless.


Half and half...

Quote:
I suggest you opt for the un-obvious alternative: Get a memory card reader, and then when you want to take off the pictures, take the memory card from the cam (it's usually in with the batteries) and plug it into the card reader.


You have to buy the card seperately. I can't find the reader seperately from the card. Took enough just to buy the camera. I had the 2 gig sd for a while now.

Quote:
These files are in standard fromat (actual FAT + JPEGs on the memory card) and thus read nicely with a computer. Also the handling is easier (it's like a CD... you plug it in it's there... and when you no longer need it you just take it out) and no software is required, short of the cardreader's driver if your BIOS doesn't support it already.


I had gotten a USB card reader with my one thing for the DS, but it never worked. Too late to turn it back in to get one that does work, it exceeded the warranty (instead of just turning it in, i was stupid enough to wait for Datel tech support to look into the situation, which voided the warrenty because of how long it took).

NOTE: By the time any of you reads this, i'll probably already be on my vacation. =)
Post 10 Jul 2007, 12:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
you realize that JPEG supports different levels of compression (and thus quality loss


YES. But many cheap cameras don't allow you to set ... and if you receive a JPG, you have no longer any choice either Shocked

Quote:
know a lossless codec that achieves image file sizes in the same range as JPEG


NO. But at least, one could compress them lostlessly cca 2x instead of leaving them full size, of even bloating them with "raw" ...

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 10 Jul 2007, 21:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:

NO. But at least, one could compress them lostlessly cca 2x instead of leaving them full size, of even bloating them with "raw" ...

And requiring even faster processors in the camera, and reducing battery life? Smile

I also think that professional photographers won't agree with you that RAW is merely bloat...
Post 11 Jul 2007, 10:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Some cameras (e.g. my Dad's) can save as TIFF or JPEG, but the one he gave me only saves to JPEG (although resizable with variable compression either 1:8 or 1:4 or 1:2, last I checked). It has a 4x digital zoom, IIRC (Vivitar).

BTW, JPEG supports lossless too, but AFAIK no one uses it (at least, not commonly). PNG (lossless) was mainly meant to replace GIF (die, LZW!), and as such it's only really good for 16-bit stuff (e.g. web cartoons?). The hype behind JPEG (supposedly patented, BTW, much to ISO committee's chagrin, so I hear) is that the human eye ideally can't tell the difference between what it leaves out. But I'm unimpressed. And we're stuck with it now. Rolling Eyes
Post 13 Jul 2007, 00:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
> that professional photographers won't agree with you that RAW is merely bloat...

SURE. Having 20 cards per 8 GiB and 2 HD's per 1/2 TiB in the bag Shocked

> only really good for 16-bit stuff

NOT only:

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=7296
Post 13 Jul 2007, 00:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.