To Superfine or not to Superfine - that is the question

[Laurie E]

I am a recent owener of an A70. Having had it for a couple of weeks and playing with it, I set the camera compression to Superfine. This reduced the CF capacity to about half but I thought that it would be worth it for better quality photos. What I have not seen is an appreciable increase in the apparent quality of the images taken - even when I zoom in using photo editing software.

For the average photo situation (am I openning another can of worms with this statement?) - is there really any benefit in superfine?

[Tom W]

I am a recent owener of an A70. Having had it for a couple of weeks and playing with it, I set the camera compression to Superfine. This reduced the CF capacity to about half but I thought that it would be worth it for better quality photos. What I have not seen is an appreciable increase in the apparent quality of the images taken - even when I zoom in using photo editing software.

For the average photo situation (am I openning another can of worms with this statement?) - is there really any benefit in superfine?

My humble opinion is to go with the highest quality image you can get. You can always reduce quality when you edit and save, but you really can't bring back what you never had. The difference may or may not be that great, depending on the camera's setting choices, but if you start with as close to perfect as you can get, you'll have that much more to work with when you edit on your computer.

I think that the real difference will come in to play when you either produce big enlargements, or do some serious cropping on your computer prior to printing. Either way, you start spreading your pixels out and you will begin to see the difference. If you're only going to print the occasional 4"X6" print, you will probably have no problem with the lower resolution.

[patul]

There's. You see.. superfine, fine, etc are the JPEG compression quality.. higher percentage is higher quality - like on graphic editor.. So superfine setting will produce the best image quality. Although JPEG compression is a loss-less compression, but there's a slight quality loss when you set lower setting.. Do yourself an experiment using PhotoShop or your fav graphich editor, try to save an image to some different JPEG compression qualities. then see the difference..

[stopbath]

JPEG is a lossy compression. You will never get back the compressed data as you do with TIFF or PNG. (Since JPEG does not de-compress to get the data back!)

For a test, use a tripod and take an average shot 3 times. Use maximum resolution, and all three JPEG settings.

At 600% (or so) image size look for artifacts where there is a dramtic shift in contrast and/or colour. You'll see the difference. The super fine has few artifacts, the fine has some, and the normal has many. If your only use is web, use fine or normal and smaller resolution and save space, but if you want to print, use superfine and higher resolution for most quality.

A few of my images are printed, so I use maximum resolution and super fine compression, and degrade a copy for the web when needed.

[stduc]

As the others say - go for the lowest compression. To be hones though I've only really noticed a problem if there is writing in the picture that I wanted to read - in which case superfine helps a lot. Personally I always use superfine - until I'm running out of room on the card and need to take more pictures that is!

[CyberDyneSystems]

When you try to balance the importance you place on the images you take against the minimal cost of additional Compact Flash storage,. is there really any contest? :wink:

Just get a larger CF card and shoot the highest quality images you can. :)

[stardis]

As Tom W said, if you do any serious cropping you will notice the difference. To get the best images you can get, you will want to crop them occasionally.

I have a couple of good butterfly pictures I have taken. They are far more interesting after closely cropping them. Check this one out taken in Superfine JPEG:
zebra butterfly (http://www.pbase.com/image/20740966)

[Tom W]

There's. You see.. superfine, fine, etc are the JPEG compression quality.. higher percentage is higher quality - like on graphic editor.. So superfine setting will produce the best image quality. Although JPEG compression is a loss-less compression, but there's a slight quality loss when you set lower setting.. Do yourself an experiment using PhotoShop or your fav graphich editor, try to save an image to some different JPEG compression qualities. then see the difference..

You are correct - I all but said that the fine and superfine were resolution, but that isn't true - it is compression as you state. Nevertheless, I think we all pretty-much agree that it is better to have the highest quality right from the start.

[plangley]

I am afraid I differ slightly here, I have experimented and the difference is very marginal, my argument would be more shots with very little loss of picture quality, or loose that shot forever because your flash card is full and you cant find or have not got another one!!!!!!!

You do loose quality, but with 4 megapixels it is small, I know the argument quality or quantity but it really is not that much less quality and if you cant see it dont worry about it, how many of those shots are you going to blow up to A3? In fact I used to own a Fuji 1.5Megapxel camera and I could print that off on A3 with superb results and only on medium compression with a file size of about 300k!

[stopbath]

When storage size is not an issue, go for biggest file size to capture the most original data you can.

When storage size becomes an issue, keep the resolution up, but back off on compression quality (go from super fine to fine to lower the file size). The loss of quality is not as great as shooting with the smaller pixel count.

Compression works best with pictures with smooth and gradual differences, but suffers artifacts when giving photos with high contrast changes. If the scene is overly complex you may wish to shoot with better compression quality to keep the artifacts at bay.

[plangley]

We should all take our pictures in RAW mode then!!!!

[stopbath]

We should all take our pictures in RAW mode then!!!!
Well, why not if you got the space (a gig card or more...)

My point is, if you have the memory, don't worry about saving space you won't fill anyway. Just shoot maximum quality. That way, when shooting, you have one less thing to forget about. "Ooops, I should have used better quality on that shot..." is not what you want to say when reviewing.

[plangley]

Yep, then upgrade your hard disk because you have filled it, then upgrade your PC because it is too slow modifying images, then upgrade your camera because it is so slow working with raw images, then upgrade your PC to DVD-R because you cant backup to CD any more..........

There is a compromise that does not just end with flash card size.

If you can show me a sensibly cropped image in fine compared to superfine that demonstrates any serious degradation then please post it.

Peter

[Tom W]

Yep, then upgrade your hard disk because you have filled it, then upgrade your PC because it is too slow modifying images, then upgrade your camera because it is so slow working with raw images, then upgrade your PC to DVD-R because you cant backup to CD any more..........

There is a compromise that does not just end with flash card size.

If you can show me a sensibly cropped image in fine compared to superfine that demonstrates any serious degradation then please post it.

Peter

I guess that most decisions represent something of a compromise. Your preference is for "good enough for the purpose", and that will produce good results as well as conserve valuable hardware resources. I won't argue with that as it is your choice. Others here prefer the approach of starting with the finest possible image, allowing the greatest amount of margin for sharpening, softening, cropping, and all the other effects one might do with digital images. It really depends on how much you prefer to mess around to produce the desired result.

Like I said, we all have our own opinions and goals. I stated mine, as did others. I cannot say yours is wrong, but it is not the approach I would use in most cases (though there are exceptions, of course).

[AndreyD]

I had similar problem some time ago, when I was going for a trip and had only 256 mb FC. Was afraid that I will soon run out of space. So I decided not to compress images but go for smaller resolution. That saved the space and still presurved needed quality. So aqtually, I was changing from 3 megapixel resulution for 2.

[stopbath]

Yep, then upgrade your hard disk because you have filled it, then upgrade your PC because it is too slow modifying images, then upgrade your camera because it is so slow working with raw images, then upgrade your PC to DVD-R because you cant backup to CD any more..........

There is a compromise that does not just end with flash card size.

If you can show me a sensibly cropped image in fine compared to superfine that demonstrates any serious degradation then please post it.

Peter
When editing the photos, the photos should be saved not as JPEG but as lossless format, which increases the size beyond that of SuperFine or Fine compression in jpeg. Some file formats which save undoable histories, can become quite monsterous... Using lossless format while editing is so that your edits do not degrade your images.

As for comparisons, check almost any book on digital photography to see the comparisons between RAW, and jpeg compressions.

It's your call on what file size you like to start with.

[morim]

If you want to see what( if any) difference ther is , take to simular shots (one in fine and one in superfine) and put them on two layers i photoshop with "difference" as blending option. The result should be completly black if ther is no difference. You will probably see som pixels where you have a sharp contrast in the picture, like bright edges for example.

This is a great trick to use if one encounters a "spot the difference"-contest. 8)

It could be tricky if the pictures doesn't match, so use tripod :-)

/Morre

[platinumdoc]

Is there a rule of thumb regarding Compression and Resolution?
4x6: Medium 2 Fine
5x7s: Medium 1 Fine
8x10s: Medium 1 Superfine
11x14: Large Superfine

There are literally 12 Combinations to set:

Large, Medium1, Medium 2, and Small with 3 levels of Compression (Normal, Fine, Superfine).

[Tom W]

I'm not sure about that rule of thumb, if only because I'm not always sure how large I will make a print. If it turns out to be a picture that I really like, then I will want an 8X10 or better. That is why I follow a differrent rule of thumb: "Use the highest quality image you can produce so that when you process it, your losses will still produce a good image at the largest size possible".

I will concede that if space is a problem, one must sacrifice compression, but I always prefer the best output that my camera can produce. I can always shrink pictures, but I cannot expand them.

[mookiemeister]

So given the choice of large(2272x1704)/fine versus medium1(1600x1200)/superfine, both takes approximately same amount (1MB) of space (from my G3 manual), it's better to pick large/fine over medium1/superfine for best quality image, correct?

[stopbath]

So given the choice of large(2272x1704)/fine versus medium1(1600x1200)/superfine, both takes approximately same amount (1MB) of space (from my G3 manual), it's better to pick large/fine over medium1/superfine for best quality image, correct?
There is no "best" situation that is always true, but generally a step of more compression works better than a step of less pixels.

[PeterS45]

I always shoot in RAW on two 256 Mb cards. Those two cards can store a total of 120 pics. I recently bought a X-drive without a harddisk for $ 80.-- and found a used 12 Gb harddisk on eBay for $ 30.--, so I won't have any storage problems soon. :)

[Alnath]

A comparison of superfine and fine http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona70/page10.asp

I always use superfine on my A80 but i have also been tempted to move to fine.