|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 31st, 2006, 02:17 PM | #16 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Morristown, New Jersey
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
|
|
December 31st, 2006, 03:59 PM | #17 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whidbey Is, WA
Posts: 326
|
"Do you mind if I add this bit of wisdom to the official DV Info Net party line? It's a perfect response to those annoying measurebators."
Chris. It would be an honor, with all the useful info I've gotten on your site. I would actually write in more if it were not for the wealth of info already available here. Happy New Year & Thanks |
January 1st, 2007, 10:35 AM | #18 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
In general terms, photo's taken live are over 1 megabyte jpg files.
Photo's taken from tape are generally under 1/2 megabyte in size. Some examples: Live: 1,101 KB 1,566 KB 1,217 KB Photo Taken from HDV Tape: 483KB 480KB 484KB As you can see, each file has a different size due to the jpg compression.
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
January 1st, 2007, 11:04 AM | #19 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Morristown, New Jersey
Posts: 249
|
I see what you mean now, - not resolution but size.
Do you happen to have any comparisons you could post? For my purposes, I often I don't notice the difference between reasonably well done jpeg compressions and the originals. Are the pictures taken directly from camera to card not compressed at all? I'm just wondering how noticable the size difference is. |
| ||||||
|
|