Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > BIG pictures or SMALL pictures ?

Reply
Thread Tools

BIG pictures or SMALL pictures ?

 
 
Albert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Over the past 10 years, I've owned 3 digital cameras--one with 0.3
megapixels (VGA), another with 2 megapixels and as of last week one
with 8.1 megapixels.

I normally prefer to view my pictures on my 1280x1024 monitor. I
rarely print them out. With my old cameras, there was never a
question of what resolution I would use. I would use the maximum.
With my 8.1 megapixel camera, should I take pictures at the maximum
setting and then use software to resize them, or should I just set the
camera to a lower resolution (for example, 2MP) and let the camera do
the resizing?

With all three cameras, I've noticed that the maximum resolution
pictures are blurry, but are considerably sharper when resized (even
using MS Paint).

I'm going on a cruise in a few weeks. Any opinions?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
On Feb 11, 7:31 pm, "Albert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Over the past 10 years, I've owned 3 digital cameras--one with 0.3
> megapixels (VGA), another with 2 megapixels and as of last week one
> with 8.1 megapixels.
>
> I normally prefer to view my pictures on my 1280x1024 monitor. I
> rarely print them out. With my old cameras, there was never a
> question of what resolution I would use. I would use the maximum.
> With my 8.1 megapixel camera, should I take pictures at the maximum
> setting and then use software to resize them, or should I just set the
> camera to a lower resolution (for example, 2MP) and let the camera do
> the resizing?
>
> With all three cameras, I've noticed that the maximum resolution
> pictures are blurry, but are considerably sharper when resized (even
> using MS Paint).
>
> I'm going on a cruise in a few weeks. Any opinions?


I go for resizing afterwards, but also saving the full res version.
With the full size version you have the option of doing a bit of
cropping at the same time you resize, and you never know when you
might want the full resolution for a print somewhere down the road.
Also keep in mind that displays will be increasing in resolution in
the years to come so you will likely want to redo the resizing from
time to time.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Scott W wrote:
[]
> I go for resizing afterwards, but also saving the full res version.
> With the full size version you have the option of doing a bit of
> cropping at the same time you resize, and you never know when you
> might want the full resolution for a print somewhere down the road.
> Also keep in mind that displays will be increasing in resolution in
> the years to come so you will likely want to redo the resizing from
> time to time.
>
> Scott


I would agree with Scott's advice - take at full resolution. You may want
to compare the different JPEG quality settings (called "extra fine",
"superfine", "fine", "normal" etc.) and see which you need. Most likely,
you won't be able to see the differences once you get above "fine" - all
you will get are increased file sizes and fewer pictures per card.

The program you use to view the images on your display matters. For best
quality it should resample the images properly from their native size to
the display resolution. Many programs do not resample very well, which
may introduce artefacts (such as steps on near-horizontal lines such as
power lines). The Windows Picture and Fax viewer does resample correctly.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Albert wrote:
> Over the past 10 years, I've owned 3 digital cameras--one with 0.3
> megapixels (VGA), another with 2 megapixels and as of last week one
> with 8.1 megapixels.
>
> I normally prefer to view my pictures on my 1280x1024 monitor. I
> rarely print them out. With my old cameras, there was never a
> question of what resolution I would use. I would use the maximum.
> With my 8.1 megapixel camera, should I take pictures at the maximum
> setting and then use software to resize them, or should I just set the
> camera to a lower resolution (for example, 2MP) and let the camera do
> the resizing?
>
> With all three cameras, I've noticed that the maximum resolution
> pictures are blurry, but are considerably sharper when resized (even
> using MS Paint).
>
> I'm going on a cruise in a few weeks. Any opinions?
>

If your camera has a setting for 2mp, you may find that an advantage for
saving space on your flash card, but the options to edit, and crop, the
images will be much poorer than if you had taken them at the full
resolution. Unless you are wealthy enough to return to a scene to take
another picture, capturing all the information you can when you are
there just make sense. You can do editing, cropping, and resizing as
needed when you return. With flash media getting cheaper daily, there
is little reason to skimp on resolution.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bucky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
On Feb 11, 9:31 pm, "Albert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> With my 8.1 megapixel camera, should I take pictures at the maximum
> setting and then use software to resize them, or should I just set the
> camera to a lower resolution (for example, 2MP) and let the camera do
> the resizing?


If your flash card capacity is not an issue with 8.1mp, then go with
8.1mp. But if the capacity may be an issue, I'd just go with the next
lower resolution. For photos that you think you might need more detail
or cropping, then switch to full mp temporarily. But theoretically,
the camera should be taking an 8.1mp and resampling down to 2mp, which
will still look very good on a screen.

 
Reply With Quote
 
jmc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Suddenly, without warning, Albert exclaimed (12-Feb-07 3:01 PM):
> Over the past 10 years, I've owned 3 digital cameras--one with 0.3
> megapixels (VGA), another with 2 megapixels and as of last week one
> with 8.1 megapixels.
>
> I normally prefer to view my pictures on my 1280x1024 monitor. I
> rarely print them out. With my old cameras, there was never a
> question of what resolution I would use. I would use the maximum.
> With my 8.1 megapixel camera, should I take pictures at the maximum
> setting and then use software to resize them, or should I just set the
> camera to a lower resolution (for example, 2MP) and let the camera do
> the resizing?
>
> With all three cameras, I've noticed that the maximum resolution
> pictures are blurry, but are considerably sharper when resized (even
> using MS Paint).
>
> I'm going on a cruise in a few weeks. Any opinions?
>


Big, definitely big. You can shrink them later, and you can use all
those MP to crop down when needed, especially if you don't have a long
zoom. You can't recover pixels you don't have, if you get that perfect
shot and want to print it at 8x10 or larger... or need to crop down for
that dolphin that was a bit too far out for your zoom. Get a bigger, or
second, card if you need to. Definitely big.

On a good camera, max resolution shouldn't be blurry.

jmc
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Bucky wrote:
[]
> If your flash card capacity is not an issue with 8.1mp, then go with
> 8.1mp. But if the capacity may be an issue, I'd just go with the next
> lower resolution. For photos that you think you might need more detail
> or cropping, then switch to full mp temporarily. But theoretically,
> the camera should be taking an 8.1mp and resampling down to 2mp, which
> will still look very good on a screen.



Both number of pixels (resolution) and JPEG compression ("quality"
setting) will affect how many pictures you can fit on a card. Therefore,
it might be worth testing before the OP goes whether 8.1MP at "standard"
quality produces a better image than, say, 5MP at "fine" quality (assuming
the file size is similar for each), when viewed at the conditions to be
used for the final display.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
"Albert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Over the past 10 years, I've owned 3 digital cameras--one with 0.3
> megapixels (VGA), another with 2 megapixels and as of last week one
> with 8.1 megapixels.
>
> I normally prefer to view my pictures on my 1280x1024 monitor. I
> rarely print them out. With my old cameras, there was never a
> question of what resolution I would use. I would use the maximum.
> With my 8.1 megapixel camera, should I take pictures at the maximum
> setting and then use software to resize them, or should I just set the
> camera to a lower resolution (for example, 2MP) and let the camera do
> the resizing?
>
> With all three cameras, I've noticed that the maximum resolution
> pictures are blurry, but are considerably sharper when resized (even
> using MS Paint).
>
> I'm going on a cruise in a few weeks. Any opinions?
>

I agree with the others on shooting at the largest size. The image file is
your digital negative so to speak. It is easy to go from larger to smaller.
It is not possible to go from 2mp to 8mp and get 8mp worth of resolution. If
space is a concern, leave resolution high and set the camera's compression
higher if it offers such a setting.
-S


 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith nuttle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Albert wrote:
> Over the past 10 years, I've owned 3 digital cameras--one with 0.3
> megapixels (VGA), another with 2 megapixels and as of last week one
> with 8.1 megapixels.
>
> I normally prefer to view my pictures on my 1280x1024 monitor. I
> rarely print them out. With my old cameras, there was never a
> question of what resolution I would use. I would use the maximum.
> With my 8.1 megapixel camera, should I take pictures at the maximum
> setting and then use software to resize them, or should I just set the
> camera to a lower resolution (for example, 2MP) and let the camera do
> the resizing?
>
> With all three cameras, I've noticed that the maximum resolution
> pictures are blurry, but are considerably sharper when resized (even
> using MS Paint).
>
> I'm going on a cruise in a few weeks. Any opinions?
>

I would go for the large picture. Remembering how monitors have changed
in the last years, "next year" we may a 4880X 4000 monitor that will use
the full 8/1 megapixels. You will then want the large picture.

--
Keith Nuttle
3110 Marquette Court
Indianapolis, IN 46268
317-802-0699
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2007
Everybody who's recommended big is probably right. The only possible
reason you might want small is if it reduces your lag between shots. It
should be easy for you to experiment with your camera and see if it
does. That's the only meaningful advantage small might have.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Easily organize and disseminate news and
photos for your family or group.
 
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
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net 0 12-26-2008 09:29 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net Web Controls 0 12-26-2008 06:11 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Ruby 0 12-24-2008 05:07 AM
[NEWBIE-Q]Small 2950, VLANs and plugging it into "big bad" network Castravete Cisco 5 03-24-2005 02:48 AM



Advertisments