«

"Jeff G" <> wrote in message
news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
> file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures).

Why is that a 'very large file size' ? Very Large relative to what?

> I have been cutting it down to 2048 x
> 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.

So?
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about
> 600 KB.

I wonder if you doing something like trying to use the 16Mb (or whatever)
memory card that came with the camera? Do you realise you can buy bigger
ones? And that they can be swapped, the one in the camera isnt fixed in
place?

>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to
> get when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So,
> if you are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take
> such large KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so
> you have to cut it down to send it.

So if you had one person who could only accept pictures at 30kb, would you
take all your pictures at 30kb?
>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will
> I lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff
>

Yes. When you find even an average shot, when you couldnt or didnt get close
enough, and you'd like to get a small section blown up to 6 x4. Or when
there is some distracting thing in the shot and you'd like to crop that out.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

>>I saw a program on TV once that showed all the known photos and films of
the
>>Kennedy assasination. Of all the people there with cameras, and there were
>>several still and a couple of film cameras, not one user knew what they
were
>>doing. If you were there with a digital camera wouldn't you want to take
the
>>best shot possible? You won't have time to make adjustments so you should
>>have it set up for the best all the time. Your once-in-a-lifetime shot may
>>come at any moment...be ready for it.

Just as an aside (I'm not even sure myself what point I am making here), on
the evening of the London tube bombings the TV news included video footage
shot on passengers' camera phones. As you can imagine, your average pocket
phone does not match the world's most sophisticated TV camera by many orders
of magnitude. Nevertheless, the dramatic impact of that footage was not,
IMHO, reduced in any way by the quality of the images. In a strange way it
even seemed to be enhanced by it.

I understand what folks are saying about always shoot at top quality. I can
appreciate some of the arguments but I would rather have got some photos of
Kennedy's assasination at 2MP than to have my camera set to 5MP only to
discover that the card filled up at the vital moment and I missed the action
whilst I deleted some photos of granny.

I have quite an old camera that only goes up to 2MP but I don't even use
that at full resolution most of the time. Almost never to I print more than
6x4 and hardly ever crop - I bought a camera with a 10x optical zoom so I
don't have to. Bear in mind, though, that I have no aspirations to be more
than a competent holiday snapper. If I do chance to hit that
once-in-a-lifetime shot I shall just be happy to be there with my camera and
I don't think I shall lose any sleep over the resolution not being high
enough.

As another aside, I wonder what tales there are out there of "the one that
got away". The only one I can remember was on a French mountain side in the
morning mists, when I rounded a corner to come face to face with a mouflon.
Of course, the camera chose that moment to decide that there was no more
power in the batteries.

Regards
Keith

> I would suggest reducing the file size by using a lower JPEG quality
> setting, rather than by redcuing resolution. Keep the 2560 x 1920, but
> use "Normal" instead of "Fine" quality (or whatever your camera calls it).


Can you explain why?

Isn't a small but better quality picture better than a large but poorer
quality one ?

Pete

P Darby wrote:
>> I would suggest reducing the file size by using a lower JPEG quality
>> setting, rather than by redcuing resolution. Keep the 2560 x 1920,
>> but use "Normal" instead of "Fine" quality (or whatever your camera
>> calls it).
>
>
> Can you explain why?
>
> Isn't a small but better quality picture better than a large but
> poorer quality one ?
>
> Pete

There have been many posts already explaining why, but in essence the way
that JPEG works, any imperfections may be smaller and less visible with an
image with more pixels but saved at a lower quality setting. Yes, the
artefact may be greater with the reduced quality image, but because it is
smaller it may be nearer the limit of the eye's ability to see the
imperfection. Remember that JPEG is very well designed so that the
imperfections it introduces are, in general difficult to see under normal
viewing circumstances.

There are also other effects - for example using 5MP rather than 3MP you
are nearer to the limit of the lens, so that the edges are relatively not
as sharp (they will take more pixels to go from black to white), and hence
the JPEG compression does not have so much high spatial frequency
information to store, and may be able to give better results.

This depends on exactly how the JPEG is implemented on the camera, so you
would need to do tests to confirm exactly what is best with the sort of
images you typically take. When judging the results, be sure to do so
under typical viewing circumstances. Zooming right in to your image on
your display may show imperfections that would be invisible under normal
viewing conditions.

Some cameras do have a reputation for excessive JPEG compression, and on
such cameras indeed the smaller image with less compression might be
better. You do need to test for yourself.

Cheers,
David

If you never do larger tahn 4x6 then perhaps 3.2Mp is all that you
need.
Because the labs take the data and print @ about 300dpi.

"Pete D" <> wrote in message
news:XBGFe.64062$...
>
> "Rick" <> wrote in message
> news:weCFe.18588$ ...
>>
>> "Jeff G" <> wrote in message
>> news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>>>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>>>
>>> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I
>>> need 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x
>>> 6"?
>>
>>
>> Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
>> to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
>
> Yes you do know about him, he said he will not print bigger than 4x6, oh
> course if you can crop you waist many of your pixels.
>

The word is "waste" and no, I wouldn't be wasting anything.

Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?


"Rick" <> wrote
>
> Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
> to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
>

"russell hobman" <> wrote in message
news:42e77c50$...
> Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?


Sounds like you're an arrogant asshole who should crop about 2/3 of your
opinion of yourself.

cropping

"Proteus" <> wrote in message
news:eHNFe.20224$...
> cropping
>

Careful, Russ Hobman will be along any minute to tell you that you're an
incompetent photographer since you need to crop.