Hey Tesselator,

Thanks for your reply.
CP2100 has only two levels of compression at 1600*1200, which are Fine (1:4)
and
Normal (1:8).
And yes, I took all of them at "Normal" setting.

About the building, now I understand.
I think I expected a little too much of my camera!    ;)
The bright sky at the top, sun behind the building, and...
> as if people were going not comming
Is it a movie or a still picture?!
JK! You're right, and it was sunset, a cloudy sunset to be more specific.

Now if you don't mind, I can't understand something about these compressin
ratios:
The camera manual says that "Fine" is a 4:1 compression, well.
But what this number has to do with the compression ratio I see in the image
properties?
Numbers like 15.7, 9.8, 10.0, ...
The least compression I could get from my camera (1600*1200, Fine) was 7.4.
But even with the quality set to Fine, different pictures taken with the
camera, have different
compression ratios shown in my image viewing software; something between 7.4
and 10.0.
What's the reason for this?


Cheers.           :o)

--



"Tesselator" <jimmmboe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbn68i$peu$1@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
>
> "Smoothy" <bigvahid.antispam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%czDa.11757$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 :-)