Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Digital Camera Formats

  1. #1
    Registered+
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • GingerNinja's system
      • CPU:
      • Xeon Octo 2.33GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 4TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GT 512MB
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2005FPW & Samsung M87 40" 1080P
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 40Mb & Pipex 8Mb

    Digital Camera Formats

    Hi All,

    Just thought I would post a question that's been bugging me for a while.

    Here goes :-

    Why do digital camera manufacturers use JPEG as one of their file formats along with RAW CCD (for the more expensive cameras) ? I mean why pay royalties on the format when you could use PNG ? I did a comparison the other day with JPEG & PNG. What I found was that saving files in JPEG format produces artifacts being a lossy format, whilst having a file size sometimes 3 times the size of PNG !!!!

    Anyone any ideas, and anyone know of a camera that uses PNG ?

    Cheers

    GingerNinja

  2. #2
    Photographer; for hire!! shiato storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    next door
    Posts
    6,977
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    6 times in 5 posts
    no.
    but the reason raw is used is beacuse raw is as it says - completely unprocessed image data and each camera manufacturer has their own way of writing this data e.g. Nikon Raw or Canon Raw are totaly different. BUT raw files are uncompressed and loss-less.
    you can open Raw files in photoshop via a plugin, or the software that comes with the camera ... so why process to PNG if raw is good enough?
    Powered by Marmite and Wet Dog
    Light Over Water Photography

  3. #3
    Registered+
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • GingerNinja's system
      • CPU:
      • Xeon Octo 2.33GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 4TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GT 512MB
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2005FPW & Samsung M87 40" 1080P
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 40Mb & Pipex 8Mb
    That's not what I was talking about, you mis-understand the point. Every camera including those that can save in RAW format uses JPEG. My question was simply why ? Why not PNG ?

  4. #4
    Photographer; for hire!! shiato storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    next door
    Posts
    6,977
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    6 times in 5 posts
    not every image program can read PNG
    Powered by Marmite and Wet Dog
    Light Over Water Photography

  5. #5
    If your 5555... Swafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Then I'm...
    Posts
    6,666
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Isnt it only stuff like photoshop? (which ok, is the best photo program, but not everyone can afford it!) people use paintshop pro, and wont be able to see it

    where jpegs, are pretty much universal, id like to name me a pc that doesnt have a jpeg decoder on
    Quote Originally Posted by Knoxville
    As I find big muff's to be a bit of an aquired taste
    AMD Athlon 4400X2 @ 2.565PenisextentionMhz
    Dual Layer, Gold Plated, LED Power,Dual Golden OMG IT MAKES MY CodPiece BIGGER 1-1-1-1 DDR62.3 @ 1222.3433Mhz
    5 X 400GB Porn Array
    X1800XT Dildo enchanged 3D Version, 512MegaLongJohn
    Oh, did I mention.....I like sheep.....


    WWW.MrsBurley.CO.UK
    now updated

  6. #6
    Registered+
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • GingerNinja's system
      • CPU:
      • Xeon Octo 2.33GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 4TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GT 512MB
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2005FPW & Samsung M87 40" 1080P
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 40Mb & Pipex 8Mb
    Think you will find most if not all program will now read PNG images.
    Every browser can read them !
    Do you see my point though ?
    Why use a lossy format with relative large size and royalty payments ?
    When you can have almost 100% quality and small size with no royalties !

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    W Yorkshire
    Posts
    5,691
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked
    15 times in 13 posts
    • XA04's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI X570-A Pro
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 5 3600
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 2x 8gb DDR 4 3200
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Serpent M.2 SSD & 4TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Palit RTX 2060
      • PSU:
      • Antec Truepower 650W
      • Case:
      • Fractcal Meshify C
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • iiyama 34" Curved UWQHD
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100mb Fibre
    for pictures it is VERY VERY hard to notice a difference in digital camera image quality, even if they were taken as PNG, you would barely notice, trust me, you wouldn't notice much at all, apart from the PNG file size been larger. PNG is good for good quality graphics (vector), and PNG generally when used for vector graphics is more compressed than JPG, but if you took large pictures with digital camera's and they were compressed to PNG then you would find out there isn't much difference between PNG and JPG, apart from PNG been about 4 times bigger than JPG.

    Edit:, eg:
    1600x1200 images;
    PNG (2.56mb):
    http://bug.org/~momo/diary/image/200...1/pict0001.png

    JPG (116kb) (compressed in photoshop, to jpg from png. on the lowest quality):
    http://img163.exs.cx/img163/392/pict00011su.jpg


    i can't see a big diference, apart from the file size in JPG been a HELL lot smaller.
    Last edited by XA04; 13-03-2005 at 02:45 AM.

  8. #8
    Photographer; for hire!! shiato storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    next door
    Posts
    6,977
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    6 times in 5 posts
    its....taking so...long...

    ok. yeah at the sizes most people print to jpegs are easiest, plus you can ram several hundred onto a CF card [or what ever memory it is you have] at acceptable quality.
    yes you get artifacts wih jpeg - and I can see differences xa04, they certainly are not massive but they are there. the png is more vivid and 'accurate' than the jpeg but since its a compressed from the png what do you expect? jpegs has been around for quite some time...maybe a change will happen, maybe not. jpegs it is for the forseable future at least
    Powered by Marmite and Wet Dog
    Light Over Water Photography

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    W Yorkshire
    Posts
    5,691
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked
    15 times in 13 posts
    • XA04's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI X570-A Pro
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 5 3600
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 2x 8gb DDR 4 3200
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Serpent M.2 SSD & 4TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Palit RTX 2060
      • PSU:
      • Antec Truepower 650W
      • Case:
      • Fractcal Meshify C
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • iiyama 34" Curved UWQHD
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100mb Fibre
    Quote Originally Posted by shiato storm
    its....taking so...long...

    ok. yeah at the sizes most people print to jpegs are easiest, plus you can ram several hundred onto a CF card [or what ever memory it is you have] at acceptable quality.
    yes you get artifacts wih jpeg - and I can see differences xa04, they certainly are not massive but they are there. the png is more vivid and 'accurate' than the jpeg but since its a compressed from the png what do you expect? jpegs has been around for quite some time...maybe a change will happen, maybe not. jpegs it is for the forseable future at least
    yes, i can see a difference too, nothing dramatic. remember, i changed the quality in photoshop to the LOWEST it would let me..

  10. #10
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14,276
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked
    837 times in 473 posts
    I think perhaps Internet Explorer's lack of decent PNG decoding might have a hand in this, but I'm not sure.
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  11. #11
    Photographer; for hire!! shiato storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    next door
    Posts
    6,977
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    6 times in 5 posts
    use firefox!!
    Powered by Marmite and Wet Dog
    Light Over Water Photography

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,069
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    7 times in 3 posts
    yes, but not everyone does!
    Twigman

  13. #13
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14,276
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked
    837 times in 473 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shiato storm
    use firefox!!
    I do.
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How Digital Audio works
    By Lowe in forum Audio Visual
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-04-2013, 09:16 AM
  2. 5MP Digital Camera £57.58
    By alias in forum Retail Therapy and Bargains
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 28-06-2004, 10:53 AM
  3. New digital camera?
    By streetster in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26-12-2003, 01:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •