"Smoothy" <bigvahid.antispam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%czDa.11757$HG5.582599@news20.bellglobal.com...
> You are right, I didn't know it's not allowed to post images in this group.
> I put all the pictures in this address:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/vahid.afra/
>
> And again you are right, when saving the crop, the JPEG compression was on
> 65%,
> I thought it is on 100%.
> But the pictures which are uploaded on the above address, are all original.


If original then the camera compressed it.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/vahid.afra/building.jpg is still 15.7 compression
ratio.  I believe the 2100 has 3 levels of JPEG and one level of uncompressed.
You had the setting on "Normal" right?  That's 15.7 jpeg.

                                                                O :-)


> Now I'd appreciate your comment about them.
> I myself think that all of them are grainy:
> Building Picture: the walls, ceiling, that parked car, ...

I'd have to see an uncompressed version side by side to be sure (impossible now)
but as just a guess I'd say 70% of the noise you're seeing in that image was
introduced my the compression algorithm.  /I Think/ the other 30% or so is due
to the fact that you've maxed out the dynamic range of the CCD with that particular
exposure (err, picture).  See how the sky is looking over exposed yet the areas
under cars and even on the side of one car are underexposed?  That.

I said "dynamic range of the CCD" and for this explaination that could suffice
even though the actual science is a little different.



> Falls Picture: the sky and water
> Flowers Picture: all over the picture I notice grains...
> Tree Picture: the leaves

The noise you see in these shots is 99.5% due to jpeg compression error.
The 1200x1600x24 shots would be about 5.7megs if uncompressed and the
1024x768x24 shot of the flowers would be about 2.3 megs.



> I wonder why it should be like this, they are all taken in daylight, so
> there should be no effect like
> image noise (which usually noticable in night pictures with higher ISO).
> This camera (Nikon Coolpix 2100) IS SUPPOSED to have sharp and crisp images!

Yup I have a couple of coolpix too. They /are/ nice.  The shot you picked
there is one of the toughest to get right...  IF it can even be done.
The sun has set behind that building but is still illuminating the BG sky
and leaving the building face in the shadows.  Notice how the lamp-posts
are lit up?  I'ld say the camera did the best job possible under the
circumstances.  Ofcourse it /could/ be a sun-rise causing the same condition
but it looked to me as if people were going not comming so I assumed dusk.



> And thanks for your explanation about posting binaries.
>

NP.

        O :-)