Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Image resolution and picture size (in pixels)

Reply
Thread Tools

Image resolution and picture size (in pixels)

 
 
News
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2005
What would be the largest useful print be from settings of "SuperFine" and
1024x768 pixels on an S1 IS?
I'm will be vacationing for a month and want to maximise the number of
images (on my CFs). I chose 1024x768 as it is "screen" size and I couldn't
discern any difference between shots at 2048x1560, 1600x1200 and 1024x768
when printed (at A4 size) on a cheap single-colour cartridge printer using
photo copier paper. Would any differences be noticeable with, say, the
Canon PIXMA iP 4000? I'm tempted to get one if B/W printing is cheap.

Keith


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pete Fenelon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2005
News <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> What would be the largest useful print be from settings of "SuperFine" and
> 1024x768 pixels on an S1 IS?


Really depends on what you want. I would think anything over 6x4 would
look pretty grainy, though.

Imaging bigots reckon 300dpi is essential, most people find 200dpi OK
for casual prints, 6"x4" is going to be a bit less than that...

Simplest thing to do is *TRY IT*. If you think your 1024x768 pictures
look ok at 6"x4", go for it.

I'd invest in a couple more CF cards and shoot at the camera's full
resolution, personally. They're hardly expensive.

pete
--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" - HMHB
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Markus.Wobisch@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2005
If you want to save memory with the best quality I would propose to
used "fine" (instead of super fine) with a higher resolution.

Markus

 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry R Harrison Jr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2005
Shoot at the highest quality & largest size (short of TIFF, which you don't
have anyway) your camera is capable of. Period. No reason to have a 3
megapixel camera if you're going to have it mimick a 1-megapixel camera,
otherwise, you can find 1 megapixel cameras at yard sales for $25 these days
and save an awful lot of money.

CF is cheap these days; I go to Fred Miranda's website and it's nothing for
me to get a 256 megabyte card for $18-25.

LRH


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
News wrote:
> What would be the largest useful print be from settings of "SuperFine" and
> 1024x768 pixels on an S1 IS?
> I'm will be vacationing for a month and want to maximise the number of
> images (on my CFs). I chose 1024x768 as it is "screen" size and I couldn't
> discern any difference between shots at 2048x1560, 1600x1200 and 1024x768
> when printed (at A4 size) on a cheap single-colour cartridge printer using
> photo copier paper. Would any differences be noticeable with, say, the
> Canon PIXMA iP 4000? I'm tempted to get one if B/W printing is cheap.
>
> Keith
>
>

If you print at 3"x4", then that resolution is adequate. If you say you
printed an A4 from that resolution and it was good enough for you, then
I can only say you aren't very discerning. Try using the highest
resolution setting, and a good photo printer, and if you still can't
tell the difference, then have your vision checked.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
News
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> If you want to save memory with the best quality I would propose to
> used "fine" (instead of super fine) with a higher resolution.
>
> Markus


Seems I've had a misunderstanding/confusion; are you saying size
(2048x1568,x1600x1200 etc) equates to resolution and (Canon's) SuprFine,
Fine and Normal equate to compression? So 2048x1568 at Fine is a better
trade-of than, say, 1024x768 at SuperFine?
Were money no problem, I would not have asked; just bought more CFs (and
bigger hard disc).
Keith


 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
News <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

: <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
: > If you want to save memory with the best quality I would propose to
: > used "fine" (instead of super fine) with a higher resolution.
: >
: > Markus

: Seems I've had a misunderstanding/confusion; are you saying size
: (2048x1568,x1600x1200 etc) equates to resolution and (Canon's)
: SuprFine, Fine and Normal equate to compression? So 2048x1568 at Fine
: is a better trade-of than, say, 1024x768 at SuperFine?

This is correct. No matter what compression you use (norm, fine, super)
you will still get the same resolution (measured in dimensions in pixels).
The more pixels, the more detail and the easier it is to crop and still
get a useable print. Unless you plan on doing large scale blowups of the
images, a slight reduction of the compression ratio have much less
immediate effect on the resulting print than reducing resolution. Of
course it is best to keep both resolution and compression as high as is
acceptable to your situation. As time goes on, and you acquire more (and
larger capacity) memory I would suggest increasing both as high as
possible. It is always much easier to reduce resolution and/or compression
after the fact than to add on missing data later.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
News
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005

"Randy Berbaum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d8m51o$ugu$(E-Mail Removed)...
> News <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> : <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> : news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> : > If you want to save memory with the best quality I would propose to
> : > used "fine" (instead of super fine) with a higher resolution.
> : >
> : > Markus
>
> : Seems I've had a misunderstanding/confusion; are you saying size
> : (2048x1568,x1600x1200 etc) equates to resolution and (Canon's)
> : SuprFine, Fine and Normal equate to compression? So 2048x1568 at Fine
> : is a better trade-of than, say, 1024x768 at SuperFine?
>
> This is correct. No matter what compression you use (norm, fine, super)
> you will still get the same resolution (measured in dimensions in pixels).
> The more pixels, the more detail and the easier it is to crop and still
> get a useable print. Unless you plan on doing large scale blowups of the
> images, a slight reduction of the compression ratio have much less
> immediate effect on the resulting print than reducing resolution. Of
> course it is best to keep both resolution and compression as high as is
> acceptable to your situation. As time goes on, and you acquire more (and
> larger capacity) memory I would suggest increasing both as high as
> possible. It is always much easier to reduce resolution and/or compression
> after the fact than to add on missing data later.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL


Thanks Randy. A very clear and helpful explanation. I'm off on holiday a
happy bunny.

Keith


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
mega pixels, file size, image size, and print size - Adobe Evangelists Frank ess Digital Photography 0 11-14-2006 05:08 PM
Advise on picture size, resolution Art Digital Photography 4 04-17-2005 05:24 PM
Picture Size vs Resolution? JethroUK© Digital Photography 14 08-14-2004 07:00 PM
D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters! Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 32 05-16-2004 10:41 PM
Bigger image size and lower quality vs. Smaller image size and higher quality Desmond Digital Photography 5 09-27-2003 04:08 AM



Advertisments