Re: Image print quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pi0neer, Jul 14, 2003.

  1. pi0neer

    pi0neer Guest

    so would there be any difference between recording at 4mp on the
    camera (2.1mp camera) or enlarging the picture in photoshop?

    If I did use the 4mp on the camera and re-sized to 2.1mp would this be
    of the same quality as if I had just used the 2.1mp setting in the
    first place?



    "MDJ" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > I'm surpirsed no-one has told you but I will, hope I'm not too late.
    >
    > If your camera is a 2.1 MP then record the images at 2.1 MP. The 4MP is just
    > the camera resizing the image and no additional information is recorded.
    >
    > If you have the option, but sure and save to the highest quality jpg and not
    > tiff.
    >
    >
    >
     
    pi0neer, Jul 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pi0neer wrote:

    > so would there be any difference between recording at 4mp on the
    > camera (2.1mp camera) or enlarging the picture in photoshop?


    If you are asking if there is any difference between a 4MP image taken with the camera vs a 2MP image taken with
    the camera, but enlarged to 4MP in Photoshop, the answer is... YES, there is a significant difference.
    If there wasn't any difference, everybody would buy 2MP cameras and enlarge in PS.
    The 4MP image from the camera has 4 MP of REAL image information.
    The 4 MP image created in PS has only 2 MP of REAL image information from the camera and 2 MP of INTERPOLATED
    (intelligent guesswork) image information

    > If I did use the 4mp on the camera and re-sized to 2.1mp would this be
    > of the same quality as if I had just used the 2.1mp setting in the
    > first place?


    It would be very close.
    If you send a 4 MP image to PS , it will resample the image to 2 MP with its own interpolation algorithm.
    A 4 MP camera takes EVERY picture as a 4 MP image.
    The Camera can then resample the image to 2 MP using its own interpolation algorithm
    Chances are the interpolation algorithms used by the camera and PS are fairly comparable, so the images will be
    very similar.
    Bob Williams


    >
    >
    > "MDJ" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > I'm surpirsed no-one has told you but I will, hope I'm not too late.
    > >
    > > If your camera is a 2.1 MP then record the images at 2.1 MP. The 4MP is just
    > > the camera resizing the image and no additional information is recorded.
    > >
    > > If you have the option, but sure and save to the highest quality jpg and not
    > > tiff.
    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    Robert E. Williams, Jul 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pi0neer

    pi0neer Guest

    Sorry, I think you misunderstood my post. The camera is a Fuji
    Finepix F401 - a 2.1MP camera - but has the option to save as
    4MP(interpolated I guess!).

    I was wondering 2 things -

    1. - would there be any difference between using the interpolated 4MP
    setting or enlarging via photoshop

    2. - if I used the interpolated setting of 4MP then downsized in
    photoshop to 2.1MP, would this 2.1MP be the same quality as if I had
    taken a 2.1MP picture directly from the camera.

    Thanks - I hope this is a bit clearer.

    "Robert E. Williams" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    > If you are asking if there is any difference between a 4MP image taken with the camera vs a 2MP image taken with
    > the camera, but enlarged to 4MP in Photoshop, the answer is... YES, there is a significant difference.
    > If there wasn't any difference, everybody would buy 2MP cameras and enlarge in PS.
    > The 4MP image from the camera has 4 MP of REAL image information.
    > The 4 MP image created in PS has only 2 MP of REAL image information from the camera and 2 MP of INTERPOLATED
    > (intelligent guesswork) image information
    >
    > > If I did use the 4mp on the camera and re-sized to 2.1mp would this be
    > > of the same quality as if I had just used the 2.1mp setting in the
    > > first place?

    >
    > It would be very close.
    > If you send a 4 MP image to PS , it will resample the image to 2 MP with its own interpolation algorithm.
    > A 4 MP camera takes EVERY picture as a 4 MP image.
    > The Camera can then resample the image to 2 MP using its own interpolation algorithm
    > Chances are the interpolation algorithms used by the camera and PS are fairly comparable, so the images will be
    > very similar.
    > Bob Williams
    >
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > "MDJ" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > > I'm surpirsed no-one has told you but I will, hope I'm not too late.
    > > >
    > > > If your camera is a 2.1 MP then record the images at 2.1 MP. The 4MP is just
    > > > the camera resizing the image and no additional information is recorded.
    > > >
    > > > If you have the option, but sure and save to the highest quality jpg and not
    > > > tiff.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
     
    pi0neer, Jul 15, 2003
    #3
  4. pi0neer

    Don Stauffer Guest

    They would be very close. There may be some differences in downsampling
    algorithms used in PS and in your camera, but those differences would
    result in rather small differences in quality, not readily apparent
    ones.

    UPsampling, however, is something else. Even a 2:1 upsampling doesn't
    result in very good results (I mean 2:1 linearly - a 2:1 in total
    pixels, or 1.4 linear, is about the limit that most upsample and sharpen
    algorithms can handle.

    pi0neer wrote:
    >
    > so would there be any difference between recording at 4mp on the
    > camera (2.1mp camera) or enlarging the picture in photoshop?
    >
    > If I did use the 4mp on the camera and re-sized to 2.1mp would this be
    > of the same quality as if I had just used the 2.1mp setting in the
    > first place?
    >
    > "MDJ" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > I'm surpirsed no-one has told you but I will, hope I'm not too late.
    > >
    > > If your camera is a 2.1 MP then record the images at 2.1 MP. The 4MP is just
    > > the camera resizing the image and no additional information is recorded.
    > >
    > > If you have the option, but sure and save to the highest quality jpg and not
    > > tiff.
    > >
    > >
    > >


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Jul 15, 2003
    #4
  5. pi0neer

    Don Stauffer Guest

    While if you ONLY wanted the 2Mp image, this is true. However, can you
    really guarantee that you will never need to crop, or have any reason
    for wanting the higher res image? Once you take it the moment is gone.
    Personally I always use the highest res setting on my camera, since I
    feel I never know when I might have a use for a higher resolution image
    than what I am planning at moment I make shot.

    pi0neer wrote:
    >
    > so whould it be fair to say on my camera (Fuji Finepix F401) that
    > there is no point in using the 4mp setting as you can get exatly the
    > same result in photoshop?
    >
    > Don Stauffer <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > They would be very close. There may be some differences in downsampling
    > > algorithms used in PS and in your camera, but those differences would
    > > result in rather small differences in quality, not readily apparent
    > > ones.
    > >
    > > UPsampling, however, is something else. Even a 2:1 upsampling doesn't
    > > result in very good results (I mean 2:1 linearly - a 2:1 in total
    > > pixels, or 1.4 linear, is about the limit that most upsample and sharpen
    > > algorithms can handle.
    > >
    > > pi0neer wrote:
    > > >
    > > > so would there be any difference between recording at 4mp on the
    > > > camera (2.1mp camera) or enlarging the picture in photoshop?
    > > >
    > > > If I did use the 4mp on the camera and re-sized to 2.1mp would this be
    > > > of the same quality as if I had just used the 2.1mp setting in the
    > > > first place?
    > > >
    > > > "MDJ" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > > > I'm surpirsed no-one has told you but I will, hope I'm not too late.
    > > > >
    > > > > If your camera is a 2.1 MP then record the images at 2.1 MP. The 4MP is just
    > > > > the camera resizing the image and no additional information is recorded.
    > > > >
    > > > > If you have the option, but sure and save to the highest quality jpg and not
    > > > > tiff.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Jul 16, 2003
    #5
  6. pi0neer

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (pi0neer) wrote:

    >Sorry, I think you misunderstood my post. The camera is a Fuji
    >Finepix F401 - a 2.1MP camera - but has the option to save as
    >4MP(interpolated I guess!).


    If that's one of the Fujis that has the sensor grid in a diamond
    pattern, I think you really have to output a 2x (4.2) megapixel file to
    get all of the detail captured in the sensor.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 17, 2003
    #6
  7. pi0neer

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Don Stauffer <> wrote:

    >UPsampling, however, is something else. Even a 2:1 upsampling doesn't
    >result in very good results (I mean 2:1 linearly - a 2:1 in total
    >pixels, or 1.4 linear, is about the limit that most upsample and sharpen
    >algorithms can handle.


    1.4x will destroy more detail than 2x. It may look sharper and more
    defined pixel-for pixel, but the total image content will be softer with
    1.4x.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 17, 2003
    #7
  8. pi0neer

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (pi0neer) wrote:

    >so whould it be fair to say on my camera (Fuji Finepix F401) that
    >there is no point in using the 4mp setting as you can get exatly the
    >same result in photoshop?


    Not at all. You can't get the same effect in Photoshop. Shooting at
    2.1mp loses detail, and doubling the dimensions in photoshop does not
    recover them.

    You *must* use 4.2mp files in your camera to capture everything the
    camera can. If you shoot at 2.1mp (grid) from a 2.1mp diamond array,
    many pixels in the output file will be based on multiple pixels from the
    CCD. If you shoot at 4.2mp, one sensor pixel becomes effectively two,
    with no averaging from nearby pixels. That's not exactly how it works,
    but it is the jist.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 17, 2003
    #8
  9. pi0neer

    pi0neer Guest

    what do you mean 1.4x and 2x? (sorry I'm quite new to this!)

    Let me re-state my original query (hopefully clearer than above! :) )


    I have a Fuji Finepix F401 which states it has 2.1 million effective
    pixels. is also says it has 1/2.7-inch super CCD in an interwoven
    pattern - number of total pixels 2.11 million pixels. It has the
    option to record at 2304x1728 pixels (4mp), 1600x1200 (2mp) and 1mp
    and also 0.3mp.

    In 4mp mode ONLY it has the option to record "Fine" or Normal" - can't
    set this for any other mp setting!

    I'm not sure how it records 4mp as it's a 2.1mp camera.

    What I want to know is what setting would produce best quality photo?
    Normally people would say use the highest setting on the camera to
    capture most detail but I am worried by using 4mp would I be losing
    detail to get the bigger size? am I better using 2.1mp and using
    photoshop or something to enlarge if/when I need to?.

    any advice on this particular model will be a great help!!

    So, in summary....

    What setting should I use? 2.1mp effective or 4mp (Fine) recorded??

    Pi0
     
    pi0neer, Jul 19, 2003
    #9
    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. Optra L print quality

    , Sep 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    434
  2. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    858
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  3. N.E.1.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    922
    Phil Stripling
    Sep 23, 2003
  4. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    906
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  5. Richard Lee
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    4,648
    Big Bill
    Aug 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page