Image resolution and picture size (in pixels)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by News, Jun 13, 2005.

  1. News

    News Guest

    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
    News, Jun 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. News

    Pete Fenelon Guest

    News <> 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
    --
    "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" - HMHB
    Pete Fenelon, Jun 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. News

    Guest

    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
    , Jun 13, 2005
    #3
  4. 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
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jun 13, 2005
    #4
  5. News

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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
    Ron Hunter, Jun 14, 2005
    #5
  6. News

    News Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    News, Jun 14, 2005
    #6
  7. News <> wrote:

    : <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : > 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
    Randy Berbaum, Jun 14, 2005
    #7
  8. News

    News Guest

    "Randy Berbaum" <> wrote in message
    news:d8m51o$ugu$...
    > News <> wrote:
    >
    > : <> wrote in message
    > : news:...
    > : > 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
    News, Jun 14, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll

    Pixels and image size ....

    lll llllllll lll lllllllllllll, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,823
    Jim Townsend
    Sep 24, 2003
  2. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    844
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  3. PeterH

    Pixels v Jpeg File Size v Print Size??

    PeterH, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    14,663
    Don Stauffer
    Jan 18, 2004
  4. tallmanirl

    Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)

    tallmanirl, Jan 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,271
    Gary Eickmeier
    Jan 28, 2007
  5. stu7

    pixels / pixel size / sensor size

    stu7, Apr 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    576
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page