Resolution question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by MikeM, Jul 5, 2006.

  1. MikeM

    MikeM Guest

    I'm new to digital and don't know much about them. I have an Olympus
    C-7070 and have been taking close-ups of plant structures like growing
    points and have noticed that when I view the images at 100 % there
    have been very small insects that the 7.1 MP of my camera are not
    quite enough to get good detail of. I use macro a lot so I was
    thinking of trying to get a camera with more pixels. If I understand
    correctly, the more pixels on a sensor of a given size, the more noise
    becomes a problem. I have read that just going for the highest number
    of MPs I can afford is not the best way to decide on a camera so I
    would like to know if there are any cameras/brands that are better at
    increasing the MPs while controlling the noise.

    Thanks
    Mike
     
    MikeM, Jul 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MikeM

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > I'm new to digital and don't know much about them. I have an Olympus
    > C-7070 and have been taking close-ups of plant structures like growing
    > points and have noticed that when I view the images at 100 % there
    > have been very small insects that the 7.1 MP of my camera are not
    > quite enough to get good detail of. I use macro a lot so I was
    > thinking of trying to get a camera with more pixels. If I understand
    > correctly, the more pixels on a sensor of a given size, the more noise
    > becomes a problem. I have read that just going for the highest number
    > of MPs I can afford is not the best way to decide on a camera so I
    > would like to know if there are any cameras/brands that are better at
    > increasing the MPs while controlling the noise.


    Most likely, the problem is not the number of pixels, at least not a lack
    thereof, but a lack of lens resolution. You see, the smaller you make the
    pixels on a sensor, the more resolution you need from your lens to take
    advantage of them.

    After getting into the math, it turns out that a C7070 has about 430
    pixels/mm, so in order to take advantage of that, you'd need to provide
    resolution from the lens of at least 220 line pairs/mm. That is an
    astounding figure that you're just not going to achieve. Most lenses' MTF
    graphs are only given up to 30 or 40 lp/mm.

    This is the reason that since the inception of photography, to capture
    more detail, the best choice has been a larger film size, and the same holds
    true with digital. You don't need more pixels, you need a larger sensor,
    giving you larger pixels.

    Unfortunately, there aren't many choices to give you significantly larger
    sensors without going to an SLR. And of course, with larger sensors, depth
    of field becomes more of a problem, but you're up against the laws of
    physics here.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Jul 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Steve Wolfe" <> wrote:
    >
    > After getting into the math, it turns out that a C7070 has about 430
    > pixels/mm,


    I was about to argue that your math was wrong, but when I checked, I found
    that you were right. Ouch. That really is an insane number of pixels per mm.

    > so in order to take advantage of that, you'd need to provide resolution
    > from the lens of at least 220 line pairs/mm.


    Ah, but here is something to argue with. Dcams only resolve to about 2/3 of
    Nyquist, not all the way out to Nyquist, so you need _decent contrast_ at
    150 lp/mm or so. (Check out the test chart images at dpreview.)

    > That is an astounding figure that you're just not going to achieve. Most
    > lenses' MTF graphs are only given up to 30 or 40 lp/mm.


    And here's something else. It turns out that lens performance goes up as the
    format goes down; i.e. it's easier to make a sharp lens for a tiny format
    than for a larger format.

    (The limit on lens performance is diffraction. Diffraction imposes a 50% MTF
    term at approximately 800/(f number), so if you need 150 lp/mm at decent
    contrast, you need to be at f/5.6 or wider, and the tiny dcams lenses often
    act as though they are close to diffraction limited at f/5.6. They really
    are seriously impressive.)

    The bottom line is that the insanely tiny insanely high pixel count consumer
    dcams actually work, within the laws of physics and optics, quite nicely. As
    long as you don't mind restricted dynamic range at the lowest ISO and noise
    at higher ISOs.

    > This is the reason that since the inception of photography, to capture
    > more detail, the best choice has been a larger film size, and the same
    > holds true with digital. You don't need more pixels, you need a larger
    > sensor, giving you larger pixels.


    Well, you need both.

    It turns out that since lenses scale up in resolution as you scale them down
    in size, the improvements from larger formats in digital are much more
    subtle than the improvements from smaller film. The tiny dcams actually do
    fly at resolutions up to at least 5 or 6MP.

    > Unfortunately, there aren't many choices to give you significantly larger
    > sensors without going to an SLR. And of course, with larger sensors,
    > depth of field becomes more of a problem, but you're up against the laws
    > of physics here.


    Actually, it turns out that _maximum_ DOF (the DOF at the point you don't
    want to stop down any more because diffraction will degrade your image at
    any smaller f stop) is exactly the same _whatever the size of the sensor_ as
    long as you are comparing cameras with the same number of pixels.

    People with more sense than money who own cameras like the 1Dsmk2 or 5D will
    see a lower max DOF than users of 6 or 8MP smaller cameras, but only because
    they have higher resolution requirements (in lines per picture height terms)
    than the smaller sensor cameras.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 5, 2006
    #3
  4. MikeM

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Besides what other have said keep in mind that most macro functions on
    cameras allow you to get closer and focus closer at full wide angle rather
    than fully zoomed in. On my FZ30 (Panasonic) with 12X zoom I can get closer
    at 1X than I can at 12X. At 1X I can get with in a couple of inches at 12X I
    have to like 6 feet away. So try (if you aren't already) doing macro at full
    wide angle. Look in your users guide for information on how close you can
    focus at full wide angle in macro mode.

    R

    "MikeM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm new to digital and don't know much about them. I have an Olympus
    > C-7070 and have been taking close-ups of plant structures like growing
    > points and have noticed that when I view the images at 100 % there
    > have been very small insects that the 7.1 MP of my camera are not
    > quite enough to get good detail of. I use macro a lot so I was
    > thinking of trying to get a camera with more pixels. If I understand
    > correctly, the more pixels on a sensor of a given size, the more noise
    > becomes a problem. I have read that just going for the highest number
    > of MPs I can afford is not the best way to decide on a camera so I
    > would like to know if there are any cameras/brands that are better at
    > increasing the MPs while controlling the noise.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Mike
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Jul 5, 2006
    #4
  5. MikeM

    MikeM Guest

    My C-7070 gets to 1.2 ", but with no flash, and most of my subjects
    avoid bright light and are in positions that make using a tripod a
    problem, and waiting for the wind to stop completely can waste a lot
    of time. I use the SM option when there is enough light to hand hold.

    I would like to get back to SLRs. I also used my 300 mm lens a lot
    before I went digital. If I do get a DSLR should I avoid 4/3 camera as
    I've read that the sensor is smaller than in other DSLRs?

    Mike


    On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:52:09 GMT, MikeM <>
    wrote:

    >I'm new to digital and don't know much about them. I have an Olympus
    >C-7070 and have been taking close-ups of plant structures like growing
    >points and have noticed that when I view the images at 100 % there
    >have been very small insects that the 7.1 MP of my camera are not
    >quite enough to get good detail of. I use macro a lot so I was
    >thinking of trying to get a camera with more pixels. If I understand
    >correctly, the more pixels on a sensor of a given size, the more noise
    >becomes a problem. I have read that just going for the highest number
    >of MPs I can afford is not the best way to decide on a camera so I
    >would like to know if there are any cameras/brands that are better at
    >increasing the MPs while controlling the noise.
    >
    >Thanks
    >Mike
     
    MikeM, Jul 5, 2006
    #5
  6. MikeM

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > Ah, but here is something to argue with. Dcams only resolve to about 2/3
    > of Nyquist, not all the way out to Nyquist, so you need _decent contrast_
    > at 150 lp/mm or so. (Check out the test chart images at dpreview.)
    >
    >> That is an astounding figure that you're just not going to achieve.
    >> Most lenses' MTF graphs are only given up to 30 or 40 lp/mm.

    >
    > And here's something else. It turns out that lens performance goes up as
    > the format goes down; i.e. it's easier to make a sharp lens for a tiny
    > format than for a larger format.


    Are you claiming that the lens in that camera is going to provide any
    decent contrast at even 150 lp/mm (at less than f/5.6), or do they just
    cover it up with excessive sharpening after the fact?

    Macro pictures with a 1.6x body and an EF-S 60mm macro lens completely
    blow away anything I've seen P&S cameras do. Of course, a good part of that
    is the fact that it's a true macro lens, not a zoom lens with a supposed
    "macro" mode, but since the P&S can't have the lens changed, that is a valid
    point.

    At f/5.6, the airy disc is 7.5 microns, with the pixels being just a
    little larger than 2 microns, so the airy disc from a point would cover 3
    full pixels. That doesn't sound like 50% MTF to me, but we're getting into
    an area that I'm less familiar with.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Jul 5, 2006
    #6
  7. "Steve Wolfe" <> wrote:
    >> Ah, but here is something to argue with. Dcams only resolve to about 2/3
    >> of Nyquist, not all the way out to Nyquist, so you need _decent contrast_
    >> at 150 lp/mm or so. (Check out the test chart images at dpreview.)
    >>
    >>> That is an astounding figure that you're just not going to achieve.
    >>> Most lenses' MTF graphs are only given up to 30 or 40 lp/mm.

    >>
    >> And here's something else. It turns out that lens performance goes up as
    >> the format goes down; i.e. it's easier to make a sharp lens for a tiny
    >> format than for a larger format.

    >
    > Are you claiming that the lens in that camera is going to provide any
    > decent contrast at even 150 lp/mm (at less than f/5.6), or do they just
    > cover it up with excessive sharpening after the fact?


    Basically, yes. The better P&S dcams actually work.

    Download the original of the London Bridge shot in the Oly 8080 gallery.
    It's not grossly bad, and not grossly oversharpened.

    http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/olympusc8080wz_samples/

    > Macro pictures with a 1.6x body and an EF-S 60mm macro lens completely
    > blow away anything I've seen P&S cameras do. Of course, a good part of
    > that is the fact that it's a true macro lens, not a zoom lens with a
    > supposed "macro" mode, but since the P&S can't have the lens changed, that
    > is a valid point.


    Yes. The P&S camera macro modes are usually a disaster.

    > At f/5.6, the airy disc is 7.5 microns, with the pixels being just a
    > little larger than 2 microns, so the airy disc from a point would cover 3
    > full pixels. That doesn't sound like 50% MTF to me, but we're getting
    > into an area that I'm less familiar with.


    The 800/(f stop) estimate for 50% MTF is pretty common, although I don't
    have a definitive reference at hand. It's an estimate, though, and there are
    different versions, from 700/(f stop) to 850 or 900/(f stop).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 5, 2006
    #7
  8. MikeM

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    >> Are you claiming that the lens in that camera is going to provide any
    >> decent contrast at even 150 lp/mm (at less than f/5.6), or do they just
    >> cover it up with excessive sharpening after the fact?

    >
    > Basically, yes. The better P&S dcams actually work.
    >
    > Download the original of the London Bridge shot in the Oly 8080 gallery.
    > It's not grossly bad, and not grossly oversharpened.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/olympusc8080wz_samples/


    I see much more sharpening than I have to use for my RebXT (and thus, more
    artifacts), and still not as much detail. In fact, looking at it again,
    over-sharpening is even more evident in the diagonals. That image really
    doesn't appear to me that the lens is providing anywhere near the resolution
    of the sensor.


    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Jul 5, 2006
    #8
  9. MikeM

    bugbear Guest

    MikeM wrote:
    > My C-7070 gets to 1.2 ", but with no flash, and most of my subjects
    > avoid bright light and are in positions that make using a tripod a
    > problem


    Your answer may be a different tripod?

    Benbo or unilock?

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Jul 5, 2006
    #9
  10. MikeM

    Bob Williams Guest

    MikeM wrote:
    > I'm new to digital and don't know much about them. I have an Olympus
    > C-7070 and have been taking close-ups of plant structures like growing
    > points and have noticed that when I view the images at 100 % there
    > have been very small insects that the 7.1 MP of my camera are not
    > quite enough to get good detail of. I use macro a lot so I was
    > thinking of trying to get a camera with more pixels. If I understand
    > correctly, the more pixels on a sensor of a given size, the more noise
    > becomes a problem. I have read that just going for the highest number
    > of MPs I can afford is not the best way to decide on a camera so I
    > would like to know if there are any cameras/brands that are better at
    > increasing the MPs while controlling the noise.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Mike



    A 7MP picture taken from 1.2 inches away should produce some pretty
    awesome macro images. The 7070 has an attenuated flash mode for close
    ups that should be some help. If the camera gets in the way of the flash
    at that close a distance, try aiming the flash at a piece of white paper
    angled so the paper diffuses light onto your subject. Alternatively
    you can use an off-camera flash to illuminate the subject without
    interference from the camera.

    It is not paucity of Megapixels that is preventing you from getting the
    shot you want. Extreme Close-up photography is not a walk in the park.
    You will have to experiment with different shooting techniques.
    Bob
     
    Bob Williams, Jul 5, 2006
    #10
  11. MikeM

    MikeM Guest

    On my camera, when the supermacro is mode is on the inbuilt flash is
    disabled. I didn't buy a flash for this camera, it cost nearly as much
    as the camera, and I was planning to get a DSLR late.

    Are there any web sites I could post some 3-4 M photos, as they came
    from the camera? I would like to get some feedback on how they compare
    with images from other cameras. The ones I would post look good to me
    but as it is my first digital I would like to know how they compare.

    MikeM

    On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:52:09 GMT, MikeM <>
    wrote:

    >I'm new to digital and don't know much about them. I have an Olympus
    >C-7070 and have been taking close-ups of plant structures like growing
    >points and have noticed that when I view the images at 100 % there
    >have been very small insects that the 7.1 MP of my camera are not
    >quite enough to get good detail of. I use macro a lot so I was
    >thinking of trying to get a camera with more pixels. If I understand
    >correctly, the more pixels on a sensor of a given size, the more noise
    >becomes a problem. I have read that just going for the highest number
    >of MPs I can afford is not the best way to decide on a camera so I
    >would like to know if there are any cameras/brands that are better at
    >increasing the MPs while controlling the noise.
    >
    >Thanks
    >Mike
     
    MikeM, Jul 6, 2006
    #11
  12. "Steve Wolfe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> Are you claiming that the lens in that camera is going to provide any
    >>> decent contrast at even 150 lp/mm (at less than f/5.6), or do they just
    >>> cover it up with excessive sharpening after the fact?

    >>
    >> Basically, yes. The better P&S dcams actually work.
    >>
    >> Download the original of the London Bridge shot in the Oly 8080 gallery.
    >> It's not grossly bad, and not grossly oversharpened.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/olympusc8080wz_samples/

    >
    > I see much more sharpening than I have to use for my RebXT (and thus,
    > more artifacts), and still not as much detail. In fact, looking at it
    > again, over-sharpening is even more evident in the diagonals. That image
    > really doesn't appear to me that the lens is providing anywhere near the
    > resolution of the sensor.


    The sharpening looks to me to be excessively wide (too high r setting) but
    quite within reason on the percentage setting (in Photoshop terms) relative
    to what a lot of people use.

    But I'm not trying to say the P&S cameras are as good as a RebelXT, I'm
    pointing out that they're nowhere near the disaster you were claiming they
    were. (I do think that they are getting worse, though. If Sony were to put
    as much effort into a new 5MP 2/3" sensor as they have into the much smaller
    size/higher pixel count sensors, then a new version of the F717 could be a
    quite nice camera.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 6, 2006
    #12
  13. "MikeM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm new to digital and don't know much about them. I have an Olympus
    > C-7070 and have been taking close-ups of plant structures like growing
    > points and have noticed that when I view the images at 100 % there
    > have been very small insects that the 7.1 MP of my camera are not
    > quite enough to get good detail of. I use macro a lot so I was
    > thinking of trying to get a camera with more pixels. If I understand
    > correctly, the more pixels on a sensor of a given size, the more noise
    > becomes a problem. I have read that just going for the highest number
    > of MPs I can afford is not the best way to decide on a camera so I
    > would like to know if there are any cameras/brands that are better at
    > increasing the MPs while controlling the noise.


    Although I've been arguing with Steve about the _details_, the bottom line
    is that his _conclusion_ is basically correct. A dSLR with a true macro lens
    will be quite a bit better than any P&S camera. (All I really wanted to
    point out there was that the P&S cameras succeed amazingly well at actually
    producing images given how ridiculously tiny the sensors are. If you think
    about them from a film camera standpoint, you'd think they couldn't possibly
    work at all.)

    But between the much larger pixels and the far better performance of
    specially designed lenses, a dSLR will be a lot better. The 8MP of the
    RebelXT he's so (rightly!) fond of will make noticeably better 8x12 or A4
    prints than your Olympus if you use a current Canon or Epson home inkjet
    printers.

    That said, the detail you are trying to resolve sounds to me to be beyond
    what 8MP can really do _at that (around 1:1) magnification_. There's an
    outrageously expensive Canon macro lens that gets a lot closer than 1:1
    which would give you the resolution you want, at the cost of a much smaller
    field of view. You could also try extension tubes and/or closeup lenses
    added onto a macro lens. I don't know how well that works, though.
    (Extension tubes and/or closeup lenses work very well with regular prime
    (non-zoom) lenses on (digital or film) SLRs, but I've only done that for
    lower magnifications than you are interested in.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 6, 2006
    #13
  14. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Steve Wolfe" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>>> Are you claiming that the lens in that camera is going to provide any
    >>>>decent contrast at even 150 lp/mm (at less than f/5.6), or do they just
    >>>>cover it up with excessive sharpening after the fact?
    >>>
    >>>Basically, yes. The better P&S dcams actually work.


    David,
    I agree with you, but...

    Lpm isn't everything in resolution. Consider 2 diffraction
    limited systems: one double the focal length, both at the
    same f/ratio. The lpm is the same, but the longer focal
    length system has double the angular resolution, thus
    resolves double the detail on the object.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 6, 2006
    #14
  15. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>Basically, yes. The better P&S dcams actually work.

    >
    > Lpm isn't everything in resolution. Consider 2 diffraction
    > limited systems: one double the focal length, both at the
    > same f/ratio. The lpm is the same, but the longer focal
    > length system has double the angular resolution, thus
    > resolves double the detail on the object.


    If you scale up the system, you find that your lenses aren't diffraction
    limited at f/5.6 any more (if you are talking about lenses in the "normal"
    range, extreme wide to 85mm equivalents or so; extreme telephotos are a
    different story).

    As Steve pointed out, we only test our 35mm and MF lenses at 40 lp/mm.

    That's why I think the D2x is a seriously bad idea; while a lot of lenses
    provide decent contrast at 45 lp/mm over a reasonable range of f stops and
    over a reasonable amount of the frame (and thus provide sharp images on the
    5D), it's going to be a lot harder to find lenses that provide _that same
    contrast_ at 67.5 lp/mm at even one f stop over a reasonable amount of the
    smaller frame. While you could do it with specially designed (digital only)
    lenses (due to the smaller image circle requirement), the industry is only
    making comparatively cheap lenses for cropped cameras.

    If Canon comes out with a 22MP FF camera, lenses from short tele on down are
    going to be problematical.

    Similarly, there's no way 24x36mm digital will ever compete with the 39MP
    medium format backs.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 6, 2006
    #15
  16. MikeM

    RobJ Guest

    David -

    This is very interesting stuff. Can you recommend any books and/or web sites
    that go into detail on these topics?

    Thanks,
    Robert
     
    RobJ, Jul 6, 2006
    #16
  17. "RobJ" <> wrote in message
    news:5Xdrg.21531$...
    > David -
    >
    > This is very interesting stuff. Can you recommend any books and/or web
    > sites that go into detail on these topics?


    I find The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (it's just one volume) useful
    for the basics.

    Other than that, Google around and read everything with great caution.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 6, 2006
    #17
  18. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    >>David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>Basically, yes. The better P&S dcams actually work.

    >>
    >>Lpm isn't everything in resolution. Consider 2 diffraction
    >>limited systems: one double the focal length, both at the
    >>same f/ratio. The lpm is the same, but the longer focal
    >>length system has double the angular resolution, thus
    >>resolves double the detail on the object.

    >
    > If you scale up the system, you find that your lenses aren't diffraction
    > limited at f/5.6 any more (if you are talking about lenses in the "normal"
    > range, extreme wide to 85mm equivalents or so; extreme telephotos are a
    > different story).


    You seem to have missed the point. Do you know of any cases
    in normal photography where doubling the focal length results
    in the same or less detail on the subject (for reasonable quality
    optics)? While you could probably find a really poor lens to say
    yes, for reasonable lenses, no. So scale the camera size up, which
    I know you have experience with, e.g. 35mm to medium format.
    Imaging the same scene with lenses covering the same field of view,
    the larger camera format shows more detail, even if the medium format
    lens has a lower MTF than the 35mm lens.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 8, 2006
    #18
  19. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>>Basically, yes. The better P&S dcams actually work.
    >>>
    >>>Lpm isn't everything in resolution. Consider 2 diffraction
    >>>limited systems: one double the focal length, both at the
    >>>same f/ratio. The lpm is the same, but the longer focal
    >>>length system has double the angular resolution, thus
    >>>resolves double the detail on the object.

    >>
    >> If you scale up the system, you find that your lenses aren't diffraction
    >> limited at f/5.6 any more (if you are talking about lenses in the
    >> "normal" range, extreme wide to 85mm equivalents or so; extreme
    >> telephotos are a different story).

    >
    > You seem to have missed the point. Do you know of any cases
    > in normal photography where doubling the focal length results
    > in the same or less detail on the subject (for reasonable quality
    > optics)?


    That's not what I was saying at all: I was talking about lp/mm at the
    sensor. The lenses in the better P&S dcams way outresolve Leitz and Zeiss
    35mm and MF lenses in MTF50 terms for normal to wide angle lenses. (Again,
    at the image plane.)

    > While you could probably find a really poor lens to say
    > yes, for reasonable lenses, no. So scale the camera size up, which
    > I know you have experience with, e.g. 35mm to medium format.
    > Imaging the same scene with lenses covering the same field of view,
    > the larger camera format shows more detail, even if the medium format
    > lens has a lower MTF than the 35mm lens.


    Yes. With film cameras, film tends to be the limiting thing, so 6x7 really
    does do four times better than 35mm.

    I was just pointing out that increasing the format size involves a matter of
    diminishing returns: you don't get four times the detail going from Oly 4/3
    to Canon FF, since (if Oly hasn't messed up) the smaller image circle means
    better performance in lp/mm terms. So you split the difference, taking
    somewhat higher resolution and better noise performance.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 8, 2006
    #19
    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:
    3,328
    Jack Yeazel
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. Simon

    Resolution resolution

    Simon, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    477
    Simon
    Feb 27, 2004
  3. slonkak

    LCD TV resolution / DVD resolution ?

    slonkak, Nov 13, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,201
    slonkak
    Nov 13, 2006
  4. hassy_user
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    795
    Bart van der Wolf
    Oct 27, 2004
  5. HS Crow
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    752
    HS Crow
    Sep 23, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page