Picture Size vs Resolution?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JethroUK©, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. JethroUK©

    JethroUK© Guest

    My cam can take different picture sizes:

    2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    pixels

    It also has 3 resolutions:

    Fine/Normal/Economy

    Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
    quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
    resolution?

    is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
    (picture quality)
    JethroUK©, Aug 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. the best thing to do is to try it yourself using image processing software

    try irfanview (look for it with google) it is free software and you should
    be able to resize images using different JPEG levels

    Once you have resized at different qualities review ur images

    Arts


    "JethroUK©" <> wrote in message
    news:iBeSc.2138$...
    > My cam can take different picture sizes:
    >
    > 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    > pixels
    >
    > It also has 3 resolutions:
    >
    > Fine/Normal/Economy
    >
    > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
    > quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
    > resolution?
    >
    > is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
    > (picture quality)
    >
    >
    Arty Phacting, Aug 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JethroUK©

    Matt Ion Guest

    "Arty Phacting" <> wrote in message
    news:pzfSc.2473$...
    > the best thing to do is to try it yourself using image processing software
    >
    > try irfanview (look for it with google) it is free software and you

    should
    > be able to resize images using different JPEG levels


    Easier still, just go to www.irfanview.com
    Matt Ion, Aug 11, 2004
    #3
  4. JethroUK©

    Matt Ion Guest

    Size and resolution are actually the same thing. The exact meaning of each
    term will vary depending on your camera's manufacturer and how they choose
    to label things, but my best guess would be that Fine/Normal/Economy refer
    to different levels of JPEG compression - Fine will give the least
    compression but highest quality, Economy the most compression but lower
    quality, and Normal would be somewhere in the middle of those two.

    --
    "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ
    from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even
    incapable of forming such opinions."
    -- Albert Einstein


    "JethroUK©" <> wrote in message
    news:iBeSc.2138$...
    > My cam can take different picture sizes:
    >
    > 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    > pixels
    >
    > It also has 3 resolutions:
    >
    > Fine/Normal/Economy
    >
    > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
    > quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
    > resolution?
    >
    > is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
    > (picture quality)
    >
    >
    Matt Ion, Aug 11, 2004
    #4
  5. "JethroUK©" <> wrote in news:iBeSc.2138$:

    > My cam can take different picture sizes:
    >
    > 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    > pixels


    Those numbers (together with printing size) determine the resolution.

    > It also has 3 resolutions:
    >
    > Fine/Normal/Economy


    Those are not resolutions. Those are JPEG quality, i.e. amount of compression.
    Are you sure that your camera calls those "resolutions"?

    > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the quality


    You can't.

    > - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and resolution?


    Giving the misunderstanding above, this question has no meaning.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 11, 2004
    #5
  6. JethroUK©

    Mitch Alsup Guest

    "JethroUK©" <> wrote in message news:<iBeSc.2138$>...
    > My cam can take different picture sizes:
    >
    > 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    > pixels


    These are resolution numbers

    >
    > It also has 3 resolutions:
    >
    > Fine/Normal/Economy


    These represent the number of bits used to encode each (colored)
    pixel value.

    >
    > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
    > quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
    > resolution?


    Its a two dimensional issue: how many pixels are there, and how much
    detail is there in each pixel.
    >
    > is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
    > (picture quality)


    Two different aspects of encoding image detail.
    Mitch Alsup, Aug 11, 2004
    #6
  7. JethroUK©

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> Fine/Normal/Economy
    >
    >These represent the number of bits used to encode each (colored)
    >pixel value.


    No, they are all 8 bits/channel ... these represent different amounts of jpeg
    compression.
    Bill Hilton, Aug 11, 2004
    #7
  8. JethroUK© wrote:
    []
    > so if i took picture @ 2304 X 1728 (normal compression) & squished it
    > down to half size - it would not be as good as 1280 X 960 (fine
    > compression)?


    You would need to test this on your own camera with a variety of scenes.
    My own experience shows that using more pixels, with greater compression
    (to keep the file size down) produces better results than reducing the
    number of pixels and reducing the compression.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 11, 2004
    #8
  9. "JethroUK©" <> wrote in
    news:yNtSc.1089$:

    >> > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the

    > quality
    >>
    >> You can't.

    >
    > so if i took picture @ 2304 X 1728 (normal compression) & squished it
    > down to half size - it would not be as good as 1280 X 960 (fine
    > compression)?
    >


    Hmmm .. maybe I misunderstood. I don't really understand what
    you are asking.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 11, 2004
    #9
  10. JethroUK©

    JethroUK© Guest

    "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns95426AE70573Cklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > "JethroUK©" <> wrote in

    news:iBeSc.2138$:
    >
    > > My cam can take different picture sizes:
    > >
    > > 2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    > > pixels

    >
    > Those numbers (together with printing size) determine the resolution.
    >
    > > It also has 3 resolutions:
    > >
    > > Fine/Normal/Economy

    >
    > Those are not resolutions. Those are JPEG quality, i.e. amount of

    compression.
    > Are you sure that your camera calls those "resolutions"?
    >
    > > Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the

    quality
    >
    > You can't.


    so if i took picture @ 2304 X 1728 (normal compression) & squished it down
    to half size - it would not be as good as 1280 X 960 (fine compression)?

    >
    > > - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and

    resolution?
    >
    > Giving the misunderstanding above, this question has no meaning.
    >
    >
    > /Roland
    JethroUK©, Aug 11, 2004
    #10
  11. JethroUK©

    JethroUK© Guest

    i'll give that try thanx both


    "Matt Ion" <> wrote in message
    news:B1iSc.72835$gE.1717@pd7tw3no...
    >
    > "Arty Phacting" <> wrote in message
    > news:pzfSc.2473$...
    > > the best thing to do is to try it yourself using image processing

    software
    > >
    > > try irfanview (look for it with google) it is free software and you

    > should
    > > be able to resize images using different JPEG levels

    >
    > Easier still, just go to www.irfanview.com
    >
    >
    >
    JethroUK©, Aug 11, 2004
    #11
  12. Go for it m8

    live n learn is the best way

    besides trying it for yourself is gonna be a whole lot easier that reading
    and interpretting the - well, you know what I mean

    ahh-hhooo-ahhh ahhhh-hooooo-aaahhh

    :)

    the Arty 1


    ps - in Irfanview try JPEG levels 1, 50 and 100 corresponding to
    sooper-dooper economy, Ford Anglia, sooper-dooper Fine under File -> Save
    As (make sure JPEG is picked and show options dialog is ticked)

    Save under slighty different filenames say filename1, filename50,
    filename100 at the native image size

    then.. resize image doing it all again. When you resize the image make sure
    you start off with the same image in each case

    this is getting complicated isn't it?

    A

    "JethroUK©" <> wrote in message
    news:yNtSc.1090$...
    > i'll give that try thanx both
    >
    >
    > "Matt Ion" <> wrote in message
    > news:B1iSc.72835$gE.1717@pd7tw3no...
    > >
    > > "Arty Phacting" <> wrote in message
    > > news:pzfSc.2473$...
    > > > the best thing to do is to try it yourself using image processing

    > software
    > > >
    > > > try irfanview (look for it with google) it is free software and you

    > > should
    > > > be able to resize images using different JPEG levels

    > >
    > > Easier still, just go to www.irfanview.com
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Arty Phacting, Aug 11, 2004
    #12
  13. On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:26:38 GMT, "JethroUK©" <> wrote:

    >My cam can take different picture sizes:
    >


    You've received a number of replies. Some good, some not so good, and
    some relate to the way different cameras handle quality.

    >2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    >pixels


    These are the actual size of the images in pixels regardless of size.

    >
    >It also has 3 resolutions:
    >
    >Fine/Normal/Economy


    These normally refer to the amount of compression used to save the
    image.

    >
    >Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
    >quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
    >resolution?


    This is really a complex question. When printing you can reduce the
    size and maintain the quality, but that means different things to
    different people.

    Let's say you take the 2304 X 1728 image. This is a bit over 3.9 mega
    pixels. Printing this at the normally assumed high quality of 300 dpi
    would give an image of 5.76 X 7.68 inches. You could stretch this
    and get a relatively decent looking 8 X 10 with no cropping, but I
    would consider a 5 X 7 to be the normal limit before quality begins
    to determinate. You could reduce the size to a 4 X 5 and it would
    look very sharp.

    OTOH you can not reduce the actual image size in pixels and maintain
    the information in the original. The reduced size will look as good
    as the original but it only contains a 1/4 of the original
    information.

    >
    >is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
    >(picture quality)


    Kinda, sorta, but not quite.

    It may be an over simplification, but think of quality as pixels per
    inch (dots per inch in a print) while size can be thought of as either
    total pixels in length and width, or pixels per length and width
    divided by pixels per inch to get the actual physical size.

    Your monitor may have some where between 70 and 90 pixels per inch
    although some have as high as 120 (this is the range with which I am
    familiar). Say your monitor has a resolution of 90 pixels per inch.
    My 17 inch does and the display is 1280 X 1024. That means your 2304
    X 1728 is *almost* 2 screens wide by 2 screens high and would probably
    look pretty good except you are reaching the limitations of the camera
    and any imperfections will show. This is where the really sharp image
    many prove to be not as sharp as was though. <:))

    Printed out at that resolution it would look ... well... not very good
    at all unless you backed away from the print far enough so you could
    not see the imperfections.

    >

    So, again (over simplified). Quality = pixels, or dots per inch while
    size is either total pixels per length and width or those totals
    divided by the pixels per inch to get the physical size of the display
    or print.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com.
    Roger Halstead, Aug 11, 2004
    #13
  14. JethroUK©

    Mike Guest

    "Mitch Alsup" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > "JethroUK©" <> wrote in message

    news:<iBeSc.2138$>...



    > >
    > > Fine/Normal/Economy

    >
    > These represent the number of bits used to encode each (colored)
    > pixel value.



    Very funny....
    In Economy mode, I suppose you spare the GST.


    Is it Digital Photo 101 by Dummies?
    Mike, Aug 11, 2004
    #14
  15. On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:26:38 GMT, "JethroUK©" <> wrote:

    I'm not sure where the originl of my post went, but it never turned up
    on my server so I'll try again.

    >My cam can take different picture sizes:
    >


    You've received a number of replies. Some good, some not so good, and
    some relate to the way different cameras handle quality.

    >2304 X 1728 / 2304 X 1536 (3:2) / 1600 X 1200 / 1280 X 960 / 640 X 480
    >pixels


    These are the actual size of the images in pixels regardless of size.

    >
    >It also has 3 resolutions:
    >
    >Fine/Normal/Economy


    These normally refer to the amount of compression used to save the
    image.

    >
    >Assuming i can reduce the physical size of a photo & yet retain the
    >quality - What's difference between picture size (ammount of pixels) and
    >resolution?


    This is really a complex question. When printing you can reduce the
    size and maintain the quality, but that means different things to
    different people.

    Let's say you take the 2304 X 1728 image. This is a bit over 3.9 mega
    pixels. Printing this at the normally assumed high quality of 300 dpi
    would give an image of 5.76 X 7.68 inches. You could stretch this
    and get a relatively decent looking 8 X 10 with no cropping, but I
    would consider a 5 X 7 to be the normal limit before quality begins
    to determinate. You could reduce the size to a 4 X 5 and it would
    look very sharp.

    OTOH you can not reduce the actual image size in pixels and maintain
    the information in the original. The reduced size will look as good
    as the original but it only contains a 1/4 of the original
    information.

    >
    >is this really just 2 different methods of achieving the same thing?
    >(picture quality)


    Kinda, sorta, but not quite.

    It may be an over simplification, but think of quality as pixels per
    inch (dots per inch in a print) while size can be thought of as either
    total pixels in length and width, or pixels per length and width
    divided by pixels per inch to get the actual physical size.

    Your monitor may have some where between 70 and 90 pixels per inch
    although some have as high as 120 (this is the range with which I am
    familiar). Say your monitor has a resolution of 90 pixels per inch.
    My 17 inch does and the display is 1280 X 1024. That means your 2304
    X 1728 is *almost* 2 screens wide by 2 screens high and would probably
    look pretty good except you are reaching the limitations of the camera
    and any imperfections will show. This is where the really sharp image
    many prove to be not as sharp as was though. <:))

    Printed out at that resolution it would look ... well... not very good
    at all unless you backed away from the print far enough so you could
    not see the imperfections.

    >

    So, again (over simplified). Quality = pixels, or dots per inch while
    size is either total pixels per length and width or those totals
    divided by the pixels per inch to get the physical size of the display
    or print.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com.
    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:26:38 GMT, "JethroUK©" <> wrote:


    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    Roger Halstead, Aug 14, 2004
    #15
    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. Jack Yeazel

    ISO Resolution Chart and Printing Resolution

    Jack Yeazel, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,170
    Jack Yeazel
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. Simon

    Resolution resolution

    Simon, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    447
    Simon
    Feb 27, 2004
  3. Steven M. Scharf

    D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

    Steven M. Scharf, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    5,406
    Georgette Preddy
    May 16, 2004
  4. Art

    Advise on picture size, resolution

    Art, Apr 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    240
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Apr 17, 2005
  5. News

    Image resolution and picture size (in pixels)

    News, Jun 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    395
Loading...

Share This Page