JPEG fading and Sensor size
cjcampbell
shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
anyway.
This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
destroy some of your data. Back in the old days when disk drives were
12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a
few weeks! You should therefore store your most important photos on
storage devices that are as small as possible, and use only one device
at a time, since putting your data on two different drives more than
doubles the risk that your data will be damaged.
Compressing the JPEG file as much as possible will also reduce the
damage done by cosmic rays and UV light.
Another problem with large storage devices also applies to camera
sensors. A larger storage device or camera sensor must have the data
"stretched" over a larger area, creating holes in your pictures. This
is why photos taken with the Canon 5D appear thin and faded compared to
pictures taken with a cell phone. The cell phone has a smaller sensor
and is able to concentrate the picture better. The most advanced
cameras all have smaller sensors for this reason, while primitive DSLRS
must continue to have large sensors in order remain backwards
compatible with lenses and other accessories. Some camera manufacturers
have attempted to load the larger sensors up with more pixels in an
attempt to fill the quantum holes created by stretching the picture too
thinly, but it is obvious that the quantum limits on number of pixels
that can be placed on a large sensor has been surpassed. This is also
why manufacturers of DSLRS tend to use inexpensive CF memory instead of
smaller SD cards. After all, even though the CF card is larger, it does
not appreciably thin out the picture more than it already comes from
the sensor. The Nikon D50 does use SD cards, which accounts for why its
pictures are brighter and sharper than those taken with the nearly
identical D70.
Placing an already too thin picture from a Canon 5D on a giant CD-ROM
will almost guarantee very rapid fading and loss of sharpness. It is
the worst of both worlds.
JPEG quality is also affected by picture size. Obviously, a photo that
has fewer pixels will concentrate the data more and store it in a
smaller area, leaving it less vulnerable to deterioration.
So, if you want JPEG pictures that last a long time, follow these
simple rules:
1) Use a pocket camera with a tiny sensor.
2) Use the highest compression possible.
3) Use the smallest picture size available for your camera.
4) Store it on the smallest memory card available.
5) Make sure there is only one copy.
Charles
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Good advice!
should I store my jpegs in the refrigerator, or in an oven where they
stay warm?
dh
https://www.paypal.com/us/mrb/pal=XT5TXXLGSGEGJ
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
-Dave
dh
news:ns7a12t92nrg8ba46...@4ax.com...
You store them in the microwave. Since it is designed to keep microwaves in,
it will also keep them out.
-Dave
Ron Hunter
I hope you follow your own advice.
People who post such stupid and misleading disinformation should reap
the same as they sow.
For those newbies, or non-technical people who might have read the post
quoted here, it is published a bit early. April 1st is a few weeks away.
Zorba the Geek
news:BI6dnXmuPJ_EoYjZ...@giganews.com...
not really safe to be let loose with a camera in the first place.
Mind you, looking at the way 'Joe Public' often use cameras, I wouldn't be
surprised if half of them of them *did* think that this was a serious
article.
Lighten up for God's sake, it was a joke! It certainly made me laugh :o)
Paul Rubin
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
Best post of the year! ;-).
SimonLW
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
aren't affected by nanobytes, the tiny bugs nybble on bits.
-S
All Things Mopar
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
> sun.
Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
Ford
John Fryatt
> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
>> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
>> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
>> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
>> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
>> sun.
>
> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
> box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
> into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
> Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>
> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
Pop down to the shops and get a new sense of humour, the one you're
using now is worn out. :-)
Randall Ainsworth
Zorba the Geek
news:Xns97854F5D...@216.196.97.131...
> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
>> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
>> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
>> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
>> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
>> sun.
>
> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
> box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
> into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
> Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>
> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
>
>
All Things Mopar
hand
look in the mirror, moron, then talk to yourself - you're gone.
All Things Mopar
hand
> "All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
> news:Xns97854F5D...@216.196.97.131...
>> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at
>> hand
>>
>>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos
>>> have such a short shelf life. You can slow the process
>>> down somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>>
>>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic
>>> fields emanating from your computer monitor and other
>>> peripherals -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays
>>> coming from the sun.
>>
>> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the
>> cereal box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later
>> JPEG scans into the present day, ditto for /all/ my
>> digitals since 2001. Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>>
>> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
>> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
>> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
>>
>>
> Oh dear, another grey humourless being with a sense of
> humour lobotomy!
>
people in this NG often tend to be of several categories:
elitists, morons who post OT crap to entice more morons to
reply, and trolls. Which are you? All of the above? In any
event, I tire quickly of crap on this NG that gets in the way
of its purpose. So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
"u" in "humor" where I live) when it comes to nonsense, and I
have even less when it comes to trolls - like you. Don't
reply, I won't see you anymore, troll.
Zorba the Geek
whether you chose to read it or not. Personally I'm none of the above, but
there do seem seem to be other categories of people on here, such as
pedantic bores, newsgroup nazis and aggressive loud mouths. I note your
quaint colonial variation of the English language, and therefore make
allowances for it without commenting further.
I can understand people on here being tired of the vulgar spam, but
occasional innocuous posts, that inject a rare moment of levity are surely
harmless, unless of course you have some vindictive desire to deny the world
a brief moment of light-hearted relief, by imposing your personal lack of
humour on the whole group.
Bill Funk
<nuno...@beez.wax> wrote:
>Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
>> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
>> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
>> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
>> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
>> sun.
>
>Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
>box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
>into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
>Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>
>After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
>anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
>replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
That whooshing sound you heard ...
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Bill Funk
<nuno...@beez.wax> wrote:
>So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
>"u" in "humor" where I live)
Um, ...
Never mind.
John Fryatt
> Today John Fryatt commented courteously on the subject at
> hand
>
>> All Things Mopar wrote:
>>> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at
>>> hand
>>>
>>>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos
>>>> have such a short shelf life. You can slow the process
>>>> down somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>>>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>>>
>>>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic
>>>> fields emanating from your computer monitor and other
>>>> peripherals -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays
>>>> coming from the sun.
>>> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the
>>> cereal box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later
>>> JPEG scans into the present day, ditto for /all/ my
>>> digitals since 2001. Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>>>
>>> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
>>> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
>>> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
>> Pop down to the shops and get a new sense of humour, the
>> one you're using now is worn out. :-)
> look in the mirror, moron, then talk to yourself - you're gone.
Oh, 'bye then. Humourless nerk.
Zorba the Geek
news:vl4b121tl0b7is7et...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:07:22 -0600, All Things Mopar
> <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote:
>
>>So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
>>"u" in "humor" where I live)
>
> Um, ...
> Never mind.
>
>
PossumTrot
aluminum helmet?
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>
> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
> destroy some of your data. Back in the old days when disk drives were
> 12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a
> few weeks! You should therefore store your most important photos on
> storage devices that are as small as possible, and use only one device
> at a time, since putting your data on two different drives more than
> doubles the risk that your data will be damaged.
I have solved this problem by storing all my RAW files by writing down the
sequence of 0's and 1's on regular paper... As you probably know, paper can
be read after several 1000 years if stored properly... ;-)
John McWilliams
> Is it April Fool's Day already? Or is this post done by someone using an
> aluminum helmet?
>
> "cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
>>shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
>>every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
>>anyway. << Snipped bits out >>
It's a warm up for 4/1. Well done!
--
John McWilliams
"It's ever so nice to trim replies when you can".
~ Margeret Meade
David Dyer-Bennet
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
ROFLAMO! Excellent job! You have captured the essence of net-kookism
here, and written an excellently humorous article.
(I was in some doubt for a while, but the summary of recommended
practices at the end settled the issue; you definitely intended this
as humor.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Darrell Larose
that I keep in a lead box down in my old bomb shelter.
Darrell Larose
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>
> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
> destroy some of your data.
I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man I
really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.
> Back in the old days when disk drives were
> 12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a
> few weeks!
>
The 12" laser discs usually suffered from physical damage ie: laser rot
where the media delaminated.
Bob Williams
cjcampbell wrote:
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>
> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
> destroy some of your data. Back in the old days when disk drives were
> 12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a
> few weeks! You should therefore store your most important photos on
> storage devices that are as small as possible, and use only one device
> at a time, since putting your data on two different drives more than
> doubles the risk that your data will be damaged.
>
OMIGOD!!
The process is much more complicated than I ever imagined.
Where can I read more about these incredible phenomena? <G>
Bob Williams
Battleax
"All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
snip
So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
> "u" in "humor" where I live) when it comes to nonsense,
snip
So then it's "hmor" where you live? Whgat colour is the sky there?
steve
will be to the edge of your hard drive due to centrifugal
force. Bit density is a measure of the complexity of a file divided
by its size.
I usually save files as tiffs because their relitavely
low bit density tends to result in the files being stored
nearer to the centre of the disk where they should be
safer from fading.
I also clear all my CF cards to zero to lighten the load
when out hiking. Obviously the weight increases when
I take photographs so I usually limit myself to two or
three images a day unless I'm feeling really fit.
Steve
On 12 Mar 2006 22:33:17 -0800, "cjcampbell"
Darrell Larose
"All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
> Today Zorba the Geek commented courteously on the subject at
> hand
>
>> "All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
>> news:Xns97854F5D...@216.196.97.131...
>>> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at
>>> hand
>>>
>>
> elitists, morons who post OT crap to entice more morons to
> reply, and trolls. Which are you? All of the above? In any
> event, I tire quickly of crap on this NG that gets in the way
> of its purpose. So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
> "u" in "humor" where I live) when it comes to nonsense, and I
> have even less when it comes to trolls - like you. Don't
> reply, I won't see you anymore, troll.
>
when it comes to troulls ;)
John McWilliams
Fast tip 'o' the day: You can print out the RAW files' O's and 1's on
light weight bond paper. Saves 27 hours work per image, but does cost
something for ink and, well, the paper you'd use anyway.
I've just completed archiving my last shoot of 64 images, and it took a
palette and a half, weighing about 3/4 of a ton.
--
John McWilliams
I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Måns Rullgård
> "cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
>> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
>> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
>> anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
>> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
>> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>>
>> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
>> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
>> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
>> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
>> destroy some of your data.
>
> I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
> the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man I
> really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.
If you do this it is useful to put some large junk files on the outer
parts of the disc. These files will absorb most of the rays before
they reach the precious images closer to the center. For best
protection, use shield files with a good structure capable absorbing a
large amount of rays before being saturated. Then you won't have to
burn new CDs so often.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@inprovide.com
John McWilliams
> "Darrell Larose" <sp...@this.invalid> writes:
>>I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
>>the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man I
>>really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.
>
>
> If you do this it is useful to put some large junk files on the outer
> parts of the disc. These files will absorb most of the rays before
> they reach the precious images closer to the center. For best
> protection, use shield files with a good structure capable absorbing a
> large amount of rays before being saturated. Then you won't have to
> burn new CDs so often.
Double wrapping the HD in heavy duty tin foil will help, too. And be
sure to wrap the DVDs and CDs individually in foil with another layer
around the jewel box.
[Anyone remember the SNL skits "The Anal-Retentive Chef"?]
--
John McWilliams
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
NO NO NO!!! Printer inc do fade due to background radiation. It must be
written by pencils and you must use font size 72 or better!!
--
--
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/Foto/