File :-(, x, )
JPG compression Anonymous
My 8MP cam saves JPEG-files of about 2.2MB (which is not much as normally it'd be 3MB on 8MP i think).
Anyway, I just opened one of the files (2.14MB) and saved it with IrfanView JPEG 80%. [no optimize or progressive mode]
Voila: The file was under 800KB but I did not see any quality changes even on the highest zoom.

WTF?
pic unrelated (i took it though)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
thats lossy compression!
/thread
>> Anonymous
>>204765
so what?
i dont see any difference on any zoom level (as i already said) so im wondering why the cam itself does not do any compression like 80%
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>204767
processing power + who cares its jpeg.
>> Anonymous
>>204768
1) wtf so the cams really use a worse algorithm because they have less power // want to use less battery power??
2) i have to care because my cam only has jpg

3) regarding 2) I really dont understand why p&s cams do not have at least TIF or something as an option.
>> Anonymous
>>204770
Cameras automatically save their jpegs at 100%, doing it any other way is just moronic. The less artefacts in the shot to begin with, the less there will be in the editing phase. In summary, stop fucking bawwwwing and deal with it.
>> Anonymous
>>204785
then explain why the same pic can be 2MB on one cam and 3MB on the other
[of course both the same MP]
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>204879
different compression algorithms duhhhh

gb2/g/
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>204770
All digital cameras capture RAWs. Even point and shoots. They just convert it to uncompressed JPEG.

You don't see a difference because you stripped extra data from the image that isn't being seen. In other words, you have less room to edit the compressed picture.
>> Anonymous
picture settings and iso affect file size too
>> Anonymous
Ok, thanks everyone for the answers.