Mr. Baird, again
TheChair
DX6340. The reviewer lists the compression at 10:1 instead of 5:1 as
you have frequently noted. If the compression is really at 10:1 in
these midline models, wouldn't that explain what reviewers keep
noticing? Would Kodak be open to adding an "extra fine" option by
firmware upgrade?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DX6340/D63DATA.HTM
Sincerely,
Mark Vos
TheChair
Ron Hunter
> Resolution/Sharpness: Resolution seems to be the DX6340's weak point,
as it showed noticeably less detail in its shots of the "laboratory"
resolution test chart than most three megapixel models I've tested,
only about 950 lines per picture height, compared to 1,100 or more for
competing models. It will still produce good-looking 8x10 prints, but
if you're a resolution fanatic, you'd do better with a competing model.>
> ISO-12233 (WG-18) Resolution Test
>
> Good resolution, 950 lines of "strong detail." Low barrel distortion.
Note the two quotations from the referenced review. Don't they seem to
contradict eachother? This is exactly what I meant in my previous message.
A 3 mp camera would produce a 24 bit image file size of about 9 meg.
Reducing it by 5 would produce a file on the order of 1.8 meg. Given a
good algorithm, and certain types of source, the output files could be
as small as 300k or as large as 5 meg. I note sizes from 140k to 1.8
meg from my 2 mp camera. This compression seems in line with mine and
you will see no artifacting below 8 x 10 on it.
Ron Baird
Kodak is always open to anything that is offered by its customers. As to
the ratio, I am not sure how he came up with that number. To my knowledge,
the ratio is indeed 1:5. I will review for you, however, and if something
is different, I will make it a point to post it here. Thanks, Mark, talk to
you soon.
Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company
"TheChair" <thec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9256e6b0.03121...@posting.google.com...
TheChair
I hope you had a pleasant Christmas. I still have some concerns. I
went ahead and gave my wife the DX6340 I bought for her. The good
news is she finds it easy to use, and I find it has excellent color.
My concern comes from its first prints. Sure enough, just as some
others have said, I noticed some blotchy, smudged detail like an oil
painting effect. For example, in this picture, please check out the
softly highlighted portion of the hair above the ear. The smudging is
visible to the naked eye, and is actually more visible and bothersome
when printed, even at 4x6. If you have any difficulty seeing it on
your monitor, just zoom in a little.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24581151
This example from my experience comports with others I've seen and
heard. Please see this page from the CNET review of the same camera:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Kodak_EasyShare_DX6340/4505-6501_7-21089111-5.html?tag=rating
This is our third digital camera, the first being a Sony 2 megapixel,
and the second being a Digital Rebel. I feel confident in saying the
smudge effect is unusual and disappointing. However, I still believe
something can be done about it. I and others have asked you to see
whether the JPEG compression ratio is excessive. Perhaps? My latest
theory is this. I have been playing around with the Noise reduction
filters on Photoshop Elements, and have seen very similar
"oil-painting" effects in experiments after I make noise reduction
adjustments past a certain point. If it's not the JPEG compression,
perhaps it's overly agressive noise reduction?
Mr. Baird, would you please look into this? I don't want to return
the camera since my wife is so pleased with its ease of use. But I
want to be pleased with the images. I'm not sitting here with a loupe
or anything, and I wouldn't complain if I didn't see the problem on
everyday, uncropped 4x6 snapshots. Is there anything Kodak can do to
avoid the oil painting or smudged effect in this camera?
Thanks.
George
Kodak regarding this oil painting/smudge issue on the DX6340.
Has anyone tried upgrading to the latest firmware to see if that
helps?
I am considering purchasing the camera but this is the one thing that
is holding me back.
thanks!
phillean
It seems to be particularly noticeable when the subject is in the foreground
and there is a larege contrast range, the effect only appears on objects in
the background. I found that for scenery the effect was reduced if I used
the PAS settings - some manual control and set the focus to center and
focussed on the object, I am not sure if that is an option on your camera. I
found the camera excellent for closeups and portraits and ok for landscapes
but not good for people/objects in the foreground with objects in the
background. I have the latest firmware, it didn't fix the problem. Still
great point and shoot camera though.
phil
"George" <wheeln...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:75a14b5e.04012...@posting.google.com...
George
such an emphasis on the quality of the lens yet have shoddy algorithms
that muddy up the picture! I'm finding this observation in more than
a couple professional and user reviews now that i've looked into it a
little more on the web.
Do you have any options on your DX6440 to adjust the compression
levels? I'm guessing not. And if not, do you know what the
compression level is set to (or your best guess by file size)? Just
wondering as Kodak's website doesn't seem to say.
So I'm just about to take the plunge with my purchase...it's either
the Kodak DX6340 or the Canon A70 (also 3MP). I've operated the DX6430
in the store and must say I really like how it operates and feels over
the A70. But, my hunch is that the A70 would probably be better for
image quality...i'm just not finding the references to this
smudge/over-compression problem with them (plus the A70 does have
adjustable compression levels). I would be taking a fair number of
shots that you describe could be troublesome quality wise.
thanks again,
George
"phillean" <phil...@removenospam.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message news:<4011...@mail.netspeed.com.au>...
phillean
The DX6440 dodsn't have any way of controlling the compression, a real pity.
I looked at the Canon A70 and A80 and almost took the Kodak back to swap for
the A80 but decided that the Kodak had sharper images - despite the
compression problems and less manual controol, - the A70 and A80 produce
somewhat soft images. I then planned to change over (plus pay the
difference) for an Olympus c5060Z but they are so popular there is a long
wait at the moment in the shop I bought the Kodak from and I needed the
camera for Christmas- a special trip to visit relatives we hadn't met and I
wanted good portrait abilities. The Dx6440 produced great portrait photos
and connects to the PC as a removeable drive and uses 2 AA NiMHs.
I don't know your budget but if you can stretch to the Olympus I think you
will be happier than with either that Kodak or that Canon. If you are on a
limited budget then I suggest you look at a used Olympus C4000 or a used
Canon S40 / S45, lots of manual control and good quality images. No
compression issues, only a few color fringing issues.
From my reading it isn't until you get to the new 5 to 6 mp cameras - the
C5060z or the Canon Digital Rebel 6mp that many of the major issues
dissapear.
phillean
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/c4000_pg5.html
"phillean" <phil...@removenospam.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:4013...@mail.netspeed.com.au...
George
addressing this issue through a firmware update from experience with
their other camera products? ie: provide the capabiility of adjusting
compression and or noise reduction levels...or just a plain fix that
prevents these artifacts.
And does (has?) Kodak ever make product enhancements through firmware
for existing products...such as a longer shutter time, currenly
limited to 4 seconds.
I'll be sending them an email and let you know of what i hear back if
interesting.
Thanks again for all the responses. I've looked at the other
recomendations and the Kodak really fits the bill best for me except
for this 'minor' smudge issue. All in all, I can probably live with
it.
cheers