"Fine" vs. "Normal" quality JPEGs

[DCK]

I'm shooting with a Nikon 12 mpx. It has 3 options for JPEG image quality: basic, normal, and fine. File size increases as quality increases.

Should I expect to get better images, for use in PS, with the "fine" setting, or is this not relevant? Will setting image quality to "fine" cause any potential problems?

Thanks.

[meshmixup]

The basic of PS is to extract the details of the pictures for 3D reconstruction. Surely the larger pixel numbers, less compression and less noise the better. But try not to sharpen the image by software otherwise the pictures may lose the details 

[olihar]

If you can shoot RAW then do that and export TIFF's if you can not always use the best JPG setting in the camera, compression artifacts are bad for calibration.

[scanlab.ca]

If you can shoot RAW then do that and export TIFF's if you can not always use the best JPG setting in the camera, compression artifacts are bad for calibration.

Go with RAW if you use Nikon.

The quality of JPEG Fine vs Raw NEF is at least 1/4, and might actually be even lower.
I was able to tell the difference just by comparing the two when recording both RAW and JPEG Fine simultaneously.

You can always reduce the quality setting in Photoscan to speed up the processing time.
That's what Accuracy setting in "Align Photos" stage is for.
It re-samples your pictures to Half and Quarter at Medium and Low respectively.