10M F vs. 10M N

[bubbbab]

New to the forum, thanks for a great melting pot of info.

An unbelievably silly question. In the quality settings of all of our digital cameras, in the maximum setting 10M for example, there are two selections. One is 10M F and the other is 10M N. Can someone please explain the difference?

Thanks,
Steve.

[tim11]

What camera is that?
My guess is that F = Fine, N = Normal. Fine will give the best possible quality.

[bubbbab]

Thank you for that. Interesting thing, is that both show the same rez, yet F does show that I have only half as many pics left to shoot than N.

[TheWengler]

Sometimes superfine is an option too

[tim11]

Yes. Both are 10 MP but it's the compression rate that makes them different. N quality use compression rate more aggressively to reduce the size of the files and the trade off is image quality. Just remember that MegaPixel is just the physical size of the image not quality.

[tim11]

....
An unbelievably silly question. ...
BTW: this isn't a silly question, everyone has to live and learn.

[bubbbab]

Thanks tim11, for all comments. It's on all of our cameras. So it is clear then, that the best will always be F is the choices are F and N.

Thanks, once again.
Steve.

[bubbbab]

Leading off from that, then, although MegaPixel is not quality, just size, it must in fact have a say in the quality of the output. ie. 10M is better than 5M, right?

[tim11]

Leading off from that, then, although MegaPixel is not quality, just size, it must in fact have a say in the quality of the output. ie. 10M is better than 5M, right?
Larger MP isn't always better. Technically, we can make larger prints from larger MP providing the image quality is good; otherwise you will see all the flaws in the large prints.
MegaPixel is just the size of the image. The quality of the photos come from the lens and (quality and size of) sensor; not size of image alone. In general, point and shoot cameras have small sensors compare to DSLR cameras.
Manufacturers mislead consumers to think bigger MP is better and this result in 10MP+ (from about 5 - 6 MP) in the last few years while the size of sensor only slightly improves.
For all the 10MP+ size, most people only print 6x4" so we sacrifice real quality for the huge MP that we don't really need.

[bubbbab]

Thanks tim11. Well, with the S2000HD and S8100FD, point and shoot seems to be where it's at for me for now. Maybe a DSLR in a year once I get a little more used to the digital world. they seem to have ok output. As far as I can tell, as good as anything I ever got from the 35mm SLR's that are now shelved.

Very informative, thanks again!
Steve.

[James DeRuvo DHQ]

I agree that more MP isn't always better MP, especially in low light. Although a few years old now, I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering (http://6mpixel.org/en/?) ñ a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany ñ the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they donít have a ìdog in this hunt,î they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.

The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, thereís more data on the chip, but the chip canít absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since weíre talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply arenít being made.

Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format.

So, with more MP, one needs a corrsponding increase in chip size otherwise, the result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better." In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.

[shahmatt]

Leading off from that, then, although MegaPixel is not quality, just size, it must in fact have a say in the quality of the output. ie. 10M is better than 5M, right?

I think there are two issues to consider here, and its important to not get confused by it.

From the image size/resolution point of view:

A 10Meg image contains more information than a 5Meg image if the resolution is the same. This is assuming the image is the jpeg format. Basically the beauty of the jpeg file is that it can approximate areas of colour to store information more efficiently.

For example, if you have 10 dots, all in red.
In a normal bmp format the information would be stored like this: R R R R R R R R R R.
But in jpeg it will store it in this way: 10 R

Which takes less space and is more efficient.

So if you have two jpegs, 10N and 10F, the difference is that, in the 10N (Normal), the pixels in an area is approximated to a single colour for easier compression. For example, if you've got 10 pixels that are made of the colour Red and a colour really close to red, the camera approximates all of it to RED and calls it 10 R, instead of 5 R and 5 (something close to R).

Whereas in a 10F file, the same number of pixels are available but the colours are not approximated as much, and more detail is retained.

I hope this is not too difficult to understand.


That's issue 1. Issue 2 is about the actual image captured by the camera. Completely different issue, related to the information capturing ability of the sensor in a camera.

The simple answer to that is, as explained by others before me: More pixels on a sensor equals more image noise on the image.

[James DeRuvo DHQ]

That's a very good way to look at it.

[Glasstream15]

Shahmat, that was good. Thanks.

We have several cameras. My Admiral uses a 4 year old Olympus Stylus 300, 3MP, 3X zoom and gets fabulous snap shots. Now, she's just recording family events and such and is not looking for super quality. But she can print 4X6 prints that are very good. Heck the print quality is as good as my XT or even K2 film for snapshots. The camera is small, weather resistant, light and takes the pictures she wants at "normal" res. And 8 or 10 MP would probably give WORSE pictures for all the reasons stated above.

I have several other cameras but I mostly use 2, a Canon S5IS, 8MP, 12X zoom and a Canon EOS XT SLR, 8MP. Notice they are both Canon, both 8MP and the XT is "entry level" for an SLR and the S5 is high end, almost top of the line for Canon P&S. BUT, the sensor SIZE is much different. The XT's sensor is several times the size of the S5's. And if you start to make large prints, like a cropped 8X10, the difference wil show quite well. The small sensor, even though the actual image size is the same, just can not produce the quality of image the large sensor does.

BTW, IMNSHO, trying to cram more pixels into either of these cameras is BAD. In fact, Canon seems to agree because they have actually reduced the MPs in the ne G11.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Here's a reasonable explanation of "JPEG compression" which is the difference between fine and normal settings on a camera. Normal = more compression, in other words approximating a wider range of colours as the one colour value so that the file size is smaller. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/jpeg-compression/

[cdifoto]

I can't tell the difference between F and N on my Fuji, so I use N.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I agree, never see any artifacts with N or any reasonable level of compression myself. I can even adjust curves afterwards and still not see any artifacts.

Doesn't stop me using RAW just to be sure though.

[Margus]

Leading off from that, then, although MegaPixel is not quality, just size, it must in fact have a say in the quality of the output. ie. 10M is better than 5M, right?

There was some fuss here about more or less megapixels so I'll contribute with adding a little more confusion :)

If you have a 10M camera which can take pictures at 10M and 5M settings then 10M is better than 5M. However it's possible that you can find a 5M camera which has better image quality than another 10M camera.

[shahmatt]

I can't tell the difference between F and N on my Fuji, so I use N.

Well, on my S6500FD,

Fine (F) works out to around 3MB and Normal (N) around 1.4MB for the same 2848x2136 pixels.

Since the pixel count is the same, this probably means that file compression is less on the 3MB image, so in theory you should see more detail and less approximation of colors.

[cdifoto]

Well, on my S6500FD,

Fine (F) works out to around 3MB and Normal (N) around 1.4MB for the same 2848x2136 pixels.

Since the pixel count is the same, this probably means that file compression is less on the 3MB image, so in theory you should see more detail and less approximation of colors.
Key words in bold. Yes, the compression is there. The numbers don't lie. However, there comes a point where you have to trust your eyes. All cameras are different of course but if you don't see a difference at 100%, you won't see a difference in print either...especially if your biggest is 8x10 and your average is 4x6.

[shahmatt]

LoL. I did say "in theory". :-)