Thanks for your reply. It seems that a quality setting of 95 leads to about
the same size files as the ones from my camera. I ordered prints from two
images, one of quality 95 and one of 100. I can't tell them apart.
Ryan
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Pascal de Bruijn <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 08:03 -0500, Ryan Krauss wrote:
> > I don't believe that my camera in jpeg mode uses low quality (it has
> > various options, but I shoot at the highest one in jpeg mode) and the
> > file size difference is dramatic (3x). So, I think there is more
> > going on here than a quality setting.
>
> Most camera JPEGs in their highest quality are usually at JPEG quality
> 96 or so with 4:2:2 (horizontal) subsampling. Which is not the highest
> possible quality at all.
>
> Real quality, and visible quality are very different things!
>
> Anyway, try the following JPEG qualities (if I'm not mistaken):
>
> JPEG Quality 89 or lower, with with horizontal and vertical subsampling
> JPEG Quality 90-92 with only horizontal subsampling
> JPEG Quality 93+ with no subsampling
>
> You're probably looking for JPEG Quality 92, which you can set on the
> second to last tab.
>
> Regards,
> Pascal de Bruijn
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> ufraw-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ufraw-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
ufraw-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ufraw-devel
