Thread: Lastest restore
View Single Post
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 5th 08, 01:47 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.radio
William Sommerwerck[_2_] William Sommerwerck[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2007
Posts: 129
Default Lastest restore

"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote
in message . ..

That was probably the case a few years ago -- but today -- with
the price of cards so low - there isn't near the "cost" for shooting
hi-res/low compression there used to be.


Cards have gotten so cheap that one might justify simply sticking in a new
card when the old is filled up, because the cost/frame is not much different
from that of film.


Of course it makes sense to understand the tradeoffs -- and choose
the right resolution / compression for both the subject and the target
media. But since I don't always know that in advance -- I tend to keep
my camera at 2048 X 1536 and compression at minimum (though I can
set it to none, I can't tell the difference).


Hmmm... 4:3... Which camera do you have?

The lowest JPEG compression is 2.7:1. This degree of compression seems to
have few, if any, visible artifacts.