Nikon D3

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cynicor, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    ISO 25600? Holy crap. Slap on an f/1.2 lens and you're ready to shoot in
    total darkness.
     
    Cynicor, Aug 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cynicor

    Guest

    , Aug 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cynicor

    Dan Poorman Guest

    Resizing questions

    Have a question about re-sizing of pictures.
    I'm shooting at 6 meg with my K100D.
    But when I submit my reports containing these pictures, they must be
    no larger than 640x480. And I think the detail etc. naturally sucks
    compared with the original sot.

    My question is: Since my final product is so small pixel wise, will I
    get better quality shooting at 2meg and reducing or shooting at my
    highest resolution and using software to reduce?

    K100D will not go lower than 2meg in camera.

    Or is this six of one half a dozen of the other and makes no
    difference anyway I do it.

    Thanks

    Dan
     
    Dan Poorman, Aug 23, 2007
    #3
  4. Re: Resizing questions

    Dan Poorman wrote:
    > Have a question about re-sizing of pictures.
    > I'm shooting at 6 meg with my K100D.
    > But when I submit my reports containing these pictures, they must be
    > no larger than 640x480. And I think the detail etc. naturally sucks
    > compared with the original sot.
    >
    > My question is: Since my final product is so small pixel wise, will I
    > get better quality shooting at 2meg and reducing or shooting at my
    > highest resolution and using software to reduce?
    >
    > K100D will not go lower than 2meg in camera.
    >
    > Or is this six of one half a dozen of the other and makes no
    > difference anyway I do it.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dan


    Dan,

    As you have the camera, why not test it for yourself?

    Perosnally, I would keep the full resolution, and use a program like
    IrfanView or Paint Shop Pro to resample all the images to their final size
    (if I had a lot to do). That way, if you ever need to crop, you can.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 24, 2007
    #4
  5. Cynicor

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Resizing questions

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:39:43 -0400, Dan Poorman wrote:

    > I'm shooting at 6 meg with my K100D.
    > But when I submit my reports containing these pictures, they
    > must be no larger than 640x480. And I think the detail etc.
    >naturally sucks compared with the original sot.
    >
    > My question is: Since my final product is so small pixel wise, will I
    > get better quality shooting at 2meg and reducing or shooting at my
    > highest resolution and using software to reduce?


    People here have said previously said that with gobs of extra
    computing power, software can produce higher quality images than
    cameras, which can also be time constrained. Whether you can see
    any difference is another matter.


    > Or is this six of one half a dozen of the other and makes no
    > difference anyway I do it.


    As I hinted, it probably won't make too much of a difference, but
    I'd use the camera's highest resolution anyway. Once you hand in
    the report you may never see or need the images again. But if
    someone sees it and would like a better copy, or if you'd like to
    zoom in to see something more clearly, or if for any reason you'd
    like to make a 5"x7" or 8"x10" print from any of the images, you'll
    wish you had more to work with than a 640x480 (0.3mp) image.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 24, 2007
    #5
  6. Re: Resizing questions

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:ikvzi.1409$...
    > Dan Poorman wrote:
    >> Have a question about re-sizing of pictures.
    >> I'm shooting at 6 meg with my K100D.
    >> But when I submit my reports containing these pictures, they must
    >> be no larger than 640x480. And I think the detail etc. naturally sucks
    >> compared with the original shot.
    >>
    >> My question is: Since my final product is so small pixel wise, will I
    >> get better quality shooting at 2meg and reducing or shooting at my
    >> highest resolution and using software to reduce?
    >>
    >> K100D will not go lower than 2meg in camera.
    >>
    >> Or is this six of one half a dozen of the other and makes no
    >> difference anyway I do it.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Dan

    >
    > Dan,
    >
    > As you have the camera, why not test it for yourself?
    >
    > Perosnally, I would keep the full resolution, and use a program like
    > IrfanView or Paint Shop Pro to resample all the images to their final size
    > (if I had a lot to do). That way, if you ever need to crop, you can.
    >
    > David


    And if someone later requests a larger, more detailed copy, you have it.

    IMHO, unless there is a strong reason (such as limited memory, which is less
    and less of an excuse as prices drop) I, personally would always shoot at
    the highest resolution and quality setting every time. Resampling for a
    particular use is quick and easy while having a full res original image
    stored gives you many more options for future uses of the same image.

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, Aug 24, 2007
    #6
  7. Cynicor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Resizing questions

    Dan Poorman wrote:
    > Have a question about re-sizing of pictures.
    > I'm shooting at 6 meg with my K100D.
    > But when I submit my reports containing these pictures, they must be
    > no larger than 640x480. And I think the detail etc. naturally sucks
    > compared with the original sot.
    >
    > My question is: Since my final product is so small pixel wise, will I
    > get better quality shooting at 2meg and reducing or shooting at my
    > highest resolution and using software to reduce?
    >
    > K100D will not go lower than 2meg in camera.
    >
    > Or is this six of one half a dozen of the other and makes no
    > difference anyway I do it.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Dan
    >

    Theoretically, the software solution working from the maximum resolution
    would be better, as there are usually several options to choose from as
    to the exact algorithm used for the resampling, and you can choose the
    one that works best for a particular picture. But, when going from a 12
    mp image, to one with less than 1MP, it probably doesn't really matter a
    lot.
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 24, 2007
    #7
  8. Cynicor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Resizing questions

    Randy Berbaum wrote:
    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    > wrote in message news:ikvzi.1409$...
    >> Dan Poorman wrote:
    >>> Have a question about re-sizing of pictures.
    >>> I'm shooting at 6 meg with my K100D.
    >>> But when I submit my reports containing these pictures, they must
    >>> be no larger than 640x480. And I think the detail etc. naturally sucks
    >>> compared with the original shot.
    >>>
    >>> My question is: Since my final product is so small pixel wise, will I
    >>> get better quality shooting at 2meg and reducing or shooting at my
    >>> highest resolution and using software to reduce?
    >>>
    >>> K100D will not go lower than 2meg in camera.
    >>>
    >>> Or is this six of one half a dozen of the other and makes no
    >>> difference anyway I do it.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks
    >>>
    >>> Dan

    >> Dan,
    >>
    >> As you have the camera, why not test it for yourself?
    >>
    >> Perosnally, I would keep the full resolution, and use a program like
    >> IrfanView or Paint Shop Pro to resample all the images to their final size
    >> (if I had a lot to do). That way, if you ever need to crop, you can.
    >>
    >> David

    >
    > And if someone later requests a larger, more detailed copy, you have it.
    >
    > IMHO, unless there is a strong reason (such as limited memory, which is less
    > and less of an excuse as prices drop) I, personally would always shoot at
    > the highest resolution and quality setting every time. Resampling for a
    > particular use is quick and easy while having a full res original image
    > stored gives you many more options for future uses of the same image.
    >
    > Randy
    >
    > ==========
    > Randy Berbaum
    > Champaign, IL
    >
    >

    Both my cameras have the highest MP settings in a format that is not
    convenient for prints (3:2), so I usually use the setting for 3:2 format
    since it greatly simplifies the printing process, on those rare
    occasions when I actually do print an image. The way the cameras work
    is to just trim the top and bottom slightly to get the 3:2 image size,
    rather than reducing the overall size of the image on the sensor, so no
    actual resolution is lost.
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 24, 2007
    #8
  9. Re: Resizing questions

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    []
    > Theoretically, the software solution working from the maximum
    > resolution would be better, as there are usually several options to
    > choose from as to the exact algorithm used for the resampling, and
    > you can choose the one that works best for a particular picture. But,
    > when going from a 12 mp image, to one with less than 1MP, it
    > probably doesn't really matter a lot.


    ... with the caveat that you need to resample (i.e. interpolate) rather
    than simply "resizing" (an option which may just select the nearest
    pixel). With a size change of sqrt (12) (about 3.4 times), it will
    probably be OK in just one step.

    I have found that with size changes of greater than 4 time (linear) if can
    be better to do the resampling in steps of two, with a touch of sharpening
    in between, so for 6x linear reduction I might do:

    2x resample, sharpen slightly, 3x reduction, perhaps sharpen.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 24, 2007
    #9
  10. Re: Resizing questions

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:39:43 -0400, Dan Poorman <> wrote:

    >Have a question about re-sizing of pictures.
    >I'm shooting at 6 meg with my K100D.
    >But when I submit my reports containing these pictures, they must be
    >no larger than 640x480. And I think the detail etc. naturally sucks
    >compared with the original sot.
    >
    >My question is: Since my final product is so small pixel wise, will I
    >get better quality shooting at 2meg and reducing or shooting at my
    >highest resolution and using software to reduce?
    >
    >K100D will not go lower than 2meg in camera.
    >
    >Or is this six of one half a dozen of the other and makes no
    >difference anyway I do it.
    >
    >Thanks
    >
    >Dan


    It all depends on the resampling algorithm that you are using in the camera or
    in post-processing. I doubt that any camera today uses Lanczos-8 resampling
    methods (the best algorithm available). So you would do better downsizing with
    an editor. If the editor only has outdated bicubic as its best algorithm, don't
    bother. It blurs any fine details that you worked so hard to obtain in the first
    place. You can recover some crispness in the smaller image with FocusMagic but
    not the detail that you have lost during downsizing.

    Editors TO NOT USE for resizing, rotating, scaling, perspective and lens
    corrections, (bicubic as the best algorithm option):

    PhotoShop (any version)
    Paint Shop Pro (any version)
    PhotoImpact (any version)
    and many others

    Editors TO USE (Lanczos algorithm available):

    IrfanView (simple Lanczos)
    PhotoLine 32 (Lanczos-8, the best)
    Q-Image (simple Lanczos plus a few other good ones for special cases)
    you may find others
     
    Harold Beacham, Aug 24, 2007
    #10
  11. Cynicor

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Re: Resizing questions

    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > Perosnally, I would keep the full resolution, and use a program like
    > IrfanView or Paint Shop Pro to resample all the images to their final size
    > (if I had a lot to do). That way, if you ever need to crop, you can.


    Irfanview offers the Lanczos filter, which is generally a lot better
    than the bicubic filter in Photoshop. Images content varies, but for
    batch downsampling, especially at non-fractional scaling factors (not
    25,33,50,67,75%) it's hard to beat Irfanview-Lanczos then Sharpen.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 24, 2007
    #11
  12. Cynicor

    Dan Poorman Guest

    Re: Resizing questions

    Thanks for the suggestions, guys.
    I've been using Microsoft's resizing tool since it's quick and fast.
    May have to explore some of the other options though.

    Dan
     
    Dan Poorman, Aug 26, 2007
    #12
    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. Tom Thackrey

    Re: Nikon D100/Nikon N80; same exposure?

    Tom Thackrey, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    478
    Tom Thackrey
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. MarkH

    Re: Nikon D100/Nikon N80; same exposure?

    MarkH, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    740
    Frank Gaylord
    Jul 15, 2003
  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Nikon Coolpix 775 or Nikon Coolpix 2500

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    569
    Larry R Harrison Jr
    Aug 2, 2003
  4. H. Brinkman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    923
    H. Brinkman
    Aug 9, 2003
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,009
    Joseph Miller
    Jun 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page