Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Picture Size vs Resolution? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t292649-picture-size-vs-resolution.html)

JethroUK© 08-11-2004 01:26 AM

Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
My cam can take different picture sizes:

2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
pixels

It also has 3 resolutions:

Fine/Normal/Economy

Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
resolution?

is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
(picture quality)



Arty Phacting 08-11-2004 02:32 AM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
the best thing to do is to try it yourself using image processing software

try irfanview (look for it with google) it is free software and you should
be able to resize images using different JPEG levels

Once you have resized at different qualities review ur images

Arts


"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
news:iBeSc.2138$K84.1402@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> My cam can take different picture sizes:
>
> 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
> pixels
>
> It also has 3 resolutions:
>
> Fine/Normal/Economy
>
> Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
> quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
> resolution?
>
> is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
> (picture quality)
>
>




Matt Ion 08-11-2004 05:21 AM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 

"Arty Phacting" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:pzfSc.2473$Uc5.1626@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> the best thing to do is to try it yourself using image processing software
>
> try irfanview (look for it with google) it is free software and you

should
> be able to resize images using different JPEG levels


Easier still, just go to www.irfanview.com




Matt Ion 08-11-2004 05:23 AM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
Size and resolution are actually the same thing. The exact meaning of each
term will vary depending on your camera's manufacturer and how they choose
to label things, but my best guess would be that Fine/Normal/Economy refer
to different levels of JPEG compression - Fine will give the least
compression but highest quality, Economy the most compression but lower
quality, and Normal would be somewhere in the middle of those two.

--
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ
from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even
incapable of forming such opinions."
-- Albert Einstein


"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
news:iBeSc.2138$K84.1402@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> My cam can take different picture sizes:
>
> 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
> pixels
>
> It also has 3 resolutions:
>
> Fine/Normal/Economy
>
> Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
> quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
> resolution?
>
> is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
> (picture quality)
>
>




Roland Karlsson 08-11-2004 08:30 AM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in news:iBeSc.2138$K84.1402@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:

> My cam can take different picture sizes:
>
> 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
> pixels


Those numbers (together with printing size) determine the resolution.

> It also has 3 resolutions:
>
> Fine/Normal/Economy


Those are not resolutions. Those are JPEG quality, i.e. amount of compression.
Are you sure that your camera calls those "resolutions"?

> Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the quality


You can't.

> - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and resolution?


Giving the misunderstanding above, this question has no meaning.


/Roland

Mitch Alsup 08-11-2004 03:22 PM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message news:<iBeSc.2138$K84.1402@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>...
> My cam can take different picture sizes:
>
> 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
> pixels


These are resolution numbers

>
> It also has 3 resolutions:
>
> Fine/Normal/Economy


These represent the number of bits used to encode each (colored)
pixel value.

>
> Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
> quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
> resolution?


Its a two dimensional issue: how many pixels are there, and how much
detail is there in each pixel.
>
> is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
> (picture quality)


Two different aspects of encoding image detail.

Bill Hilton 08-11-2004 03:48 PM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
>> Fine/Normal/Economy
>
>These represent the number of bits used to encode each (colored)
>pixel value.


No, they are all 8 bits/channel ... these represent different amounts of jpeg
compression.

David J Taylor 08-11-2004 05:55 PM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
JethroUK© wrote:
[]
> so if i took picture @ 2304 X 1728 (normal compression) & squished it
> down to half size - it would not be as good as 1280 X 960 (fine
> compression)?


You would need to test this on your own camera with a variety of scenes.
My own experience shows that using more pixels, with greater compression
(to keep the file size down) produces better results than reducing the
number of pixels and reducing the compression.

Cheers,
David



Roland Karlsson 08-11-2004 06:09 PM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 
"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in
news:yNtSc.1089$Hw4.785@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:

>> > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the

> quality
>>
>> You can't.

>
> so if i took picture @ 2304 X 1728 (normal compression) & squished it
> down to half size - it would not be as good as 1280 X 960 (fine
> compression)?
>


Hmmm .. maybe I misunderstood. I don't really understand what
you are asking.


/Roland

JethroUK© 08-11-2004 06:43 PM

Re: Picture Size vs Resolution?
 

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95426AE70573Cklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in

news:iBeSc.2138$K84.1402@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:
>
> > My cam can take different picture sizes:
> >
> > 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
> > pixels

>
> Those numbers (together with printing size) determine the resolution.
>
> > It also has 3 resolutions:
> >
> > Fine/Normal/Economy

>
> Those are not resolutions. Those are JPEG quality, i.e. amount of

compression.
> Are you sure that your camera calls those "resolutions"?
>
> > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the

quality
>
> You can't.


so if i took picture @ 2304 X 1728 (normal compression) & squished it down
to half size - it would not be as good as 1280 X 960 (fine compression)?

>
> > - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and

resolution?
>
> Giving the misunderstanding above, this question has no meaning.
>
>
> /Roland





All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.