Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Resolution

Reply
Thread Tools

Resolution

 
 
Dan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006
Hello,

This may sound like a stupid question:

If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..

Thanks,
Dan

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bates
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006
Dan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This may sound like a stupid question:
>
> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
>
> Thanks,
> Dan


Hi Dan,

The main advantage that I can think of would be that you cannot be
certain that the composition of the photo that you shoot will be
exactly what you want. As such, you may wish to crop your images to
focus in on a smaller area of the original picture while maintaining
enough resolution to view it full screen. So in that case, a high res
image would still be of use.

I see your point - if on screen viewing is all you are ever going to
use the pictures for - you may not need to shoot at higher res, but I
would be seriously tempted to still shoot at full resolution because a)
you may change your mind down the road or b) you may get an even higher
resolution monitor one day.

Bates....

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006
"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
>



You are correct. You do not require a high resolution camera if you intend
to throw away all those pixels and view the images on your screen.

But a 2 MP camera will probably have no advanced features and probably no
optical zoom lens (they did back in 2000, when 2 MP was the state of the
art, but anything in that megapixel range now is just a toy).

Also, if you take a photo that you ultimately want to enlarge into a print,
you will have compromised the image by using a very low-resolution camera.

You are probably better off going with whatever middle-of-the-road camera is
currently in vogue, and if you have more megapixels than you really need,
just live with it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Brugman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006

"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hello,
>
> This may sound like a stupid question:
>
> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>


No a 7.1 mp camera is better than a 2.0 mp camera. The 7.1 mp camera
had 1.77 mp red, 1.77 mp blue and 3.55 mp green sensors.
So suppose you have a red only picture. On the 2.0 mp camera then you
have the resolution of a .5 mp red only camera. With the 7.1 mp camera,
you have the resolution of a 1.77mp red only camera.
So the 7.1 mp camera has an advantage over a 2 mp camera even
scaled down to the screen resolution of 1600x1200.
(The screen has 1600 x 1200 red pixels, this depends a bit on the type of
screen, crt's do not have actual pixels, but dot's which are not alligned to
pixels.
TFT screens have 'pixels'.).

But if you use a viewer like
http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

then you will often be tempted to zoom in on the picture. (With the
FSViewer is in full screen view mode this is only a click away).
I do recommend the FSViewer for it's superiour viewing capabilities.
This makes your 7.1 mp camera more valuable as well.

Good luck,
Ben





 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006

Dan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This may sound like a stupid question:
>
> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
>
> Thanks,
> Dan


Your point is well taken. The primary advantage to you, of the larger
size, is when someone comes into your home/office and says "wow, what a
great picture, can you print a copy for me?".

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006
"Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hello,
>
> This may sound like a stupid question:
>
> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> than 1600x1200?


Yes, if you are going to crop.

Rutger


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Marcin Gorgolewski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006
I suggest you to use 2272 x 1704 or bigger format.
Sometimes you need to rotate the photo (ex declivous line of horizon) or
crop the selected area (ex people, other objects).

Best Regards
Marcin Gorgolewski
www.mybestphotos.batcave.net



Uzytkownik "Dan" <(E-Mail Removed)> napisal w wiadomosci
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hello,
>
> This may sound like a stupid question:
>
> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2006
On 20 Sep 2006 06:09:07 -0700, Bates wrote:

> I see your point - if on screen viewing is all you are ever going to
> use the pictures for - you may not need to shoot at higher res, but I
> would be seriously tempted to still shoot at full resolution because a)
> you may change your mind down the road or b) you may get an even higher
> resolution monitor one day.


Your comment about changing monitors is apt. I bought Southpeak's
"Ansel Adams Screensaver" 11 years ago and used only the 640x480
images for several years until I bought a TI laptop that could
handle its 800x600 images. Now I'm disappointed that the highest
resolutions Southpeak included were 1024x768, since I now use
several of Adams' shots for Windows wallpaper, and they have to be
stretched considerably to fill the screen, noticeably reducing the
apparent sharpness of the images. Still pretty good, though.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rod Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2006
Dan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This may sound like a stupid question:
>
> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>

Today that may be all you want to do but down the road you might have
that perfect picture that you want printed at 8X10 or even larger. Then
you will kick yourself for shooting at a lower resolution.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
Bates wrote:
>
> Dan wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This may sound like a stupid question:
> >
> > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
> > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
> > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dan

>
> Hi Dan,
>
> The main advantage that I can think of would be that you cannot be
> certain that the composition of the photo that you shoot will be
> exactly what you want. As such, you may wish to crop your images to
> focus in on a smaller area of the original picture while maintaining
> enough resolution to view it full screen. So in that case, a high res
> image would still be of use.
>
> I see your point - if on screen viewing is all you are ever going to
> use the pictures for - you may not need to shoot at higher res, but I
> would be seriously tempted to still shoot at full resolution because a)
> you may change your mind down the road or b) you may get an even higher
> resolution monitor one day.
>
> Bates....



Hello, Bates:

Along similar lines, higher resolution gives you more to work with,
later. You can always resize (or resample), if you want a smaller (in
dimension) image, but it isn't viable, in reverse...you can't make a
little picture, much bigger. (Not without severe pixelation, that is.)

As huge hard drives are so relatively inexpensive, nowadays, there's
plenty of storage space for larger digital files. Thus, it's smart
to grab as many digicam megapixels as possible, and also to use loftier
DPI rates, when scanning.


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
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
LCD TV resolution / DVD resolution ? slonkak DVD Video 0 11-13-2006 02:34 PM
How do you change the Modelsim Cursor Resolution (not simulation resolution) Andrew FPGA VHDL 0 09-26-2005 04:05 AM
Scanning resolution, printing resolution, and downsampling hassy_user Digital Photography 11 10-27-2004 07:18 PM
Resolution resolution Simon Digital Photography 4 02-27-2004 01:53 PM
ISO Resolution Chart and Printing Resolution Jack Yeazel Digital Photography 0 08-11-2003 11:19 PM



Advertisments