Resolution

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dan, Sep 20, 2006.

  1. Dan

    Dan Guest

    Hello,

    This may sound like a stupid question:

    If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..

    Thanks,
    Dan
    Dan, Sep 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dan

    Bates Guest

    Dan wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > This may sound like a stupid question:
    >
    > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Dan


    Hi Dan,

    The main advantage that I can think of would be that you cannot be
    certain that the composition of the photo that you shoot will be
    exactly what you want. As such, you may wish to crop your images to
    focus in on a smaller area of the original picture while maintaining
    enough resolution to view it full screen. So in that case, a high res
    image would still be of use.

    I see your point - if on screen viewing is all you are ever going to
    use the pictures for - you may not need to shoot at higher res, but I
    would be seriously tempted to still shoot at full resolution because a)
    you may change your mind down the road or b) you may get an even higher
    resolution monitor one day.

    Bates....
    Bates, Sep 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dan

    jeremy Guest

    "Dan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    >



    You are correct. You do not require a high resolution camera if you intend
    to throw away all those pixels and view the images on your screen.

    But a 2 MP camera will probably have no advanced features and probably no
    optical zoom lens (they did back in 2000, when 2 MP was the state of the
    art, but anything in that megapixel range now is just a toy).

    Also, if you take a photo that you ultimately want to enlarge into a print,
    you will have compromised the image by using a very low-resolution camera.

    You are probably better off going with whatever middle-of-the-road camera is
    currently in vogue, and if you have more megapixels than you really need,
    just live with it.
    jeremy, Sep 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Dan

    Ben Brugman Guest

    "Dan" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > Hello,
    >
    > This may sound like a stupid question:
    >
    > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Dan
    >


    No a 7.1 mp camera is better than a 2.0 mp camera. The 7.1 mp camera
    had 1.77 mp red, 1.77 mp blue and 3.55 mp green sensors.
    So suppose you have a red only picture. On the 2.0 mp camera then you
    have the resolution of a .5 mp red only camera. With the 7.1 mp camera,
    you have the resolution of a 1.77mp red only camera.
    So the 7.1 mp camera has an advantage over a 2 mp camera even
    scaled down to the screen resolution of 1600x1200.
    (The screen has 1600 x 1200 red pixels, this depends a bit on the type of
    screen, crt's do not have actual pixels, but dot's which are not alligned to
    pixels.
    TFT screens have 'pixels'.).

    But if you use a viewer like
    http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

    then you will often be tempted to zoom in on the picture. (With the
    FSViewer is in full screen view mode this is only a click away).
    I do recommend the FSViewer for it's superiour viewing capabilities.
    This makes your 7.1 mp camera more valuable as well.

    Good luck,
    Ben
    Ben Brugman, Sep 20, 2006
    #4
  5. Dan

    Pat Guest

    Dan wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > This may sound like a stupid question:
    >
    > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Dan


    Your point is well taken. The primary advantage to you, of the larger
    size, is when someone comes into your home/office and says "wow, what a
    great picture, can you print a copy for me?".
    Pat, Sep 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Dan

    Rutger Guest

    "Dan" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > Hello,
    >
    > This may sound like a stupid question:
    >
    > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > than 1600x1200?


    Yes, if you are going to crop.

    Rutger


    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/
    Rutger, Sep 20, 2006
    #6
  7. I suggest you to use 2272 x 1704 or bigger format.
    Sometimes you need to rotate the photo (ex declivous line of horizon) or
    crop the selected area (ex people, other objects).

    Best Regards
    Marcin Gorgolewski
    www.mybestphotos.batcave.net



    Uzytkownik "Dan" <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:...
    > Hello,
    >
    > This may sound like a stupid question:
    >
    > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Dan
    >
    Marcin Gorgolewski, Sep 20, 2006
    #7
  8. Dan

    ASAAR Guest

    On 20 Sep 2006 06:09:07 -0700, Bates wrote:

    > I see your point - if on screen viewing is all you are ever going to
    > use the pictures for - you may not need to shoot at higher res, but I
    > would be seriously tempted to still shoot at full resolution because a)
    > you may change your mind down the road or b) you may get an even higher
    > resolution monitor one day.


    Your comment about changing monitors is apt. I bought Southpeak's
    "Ansel Adams Screensaver" 11 years ago and used only the 640x480
    images for several years until I bought a TI laptop that could
    handle its 800x600 images. Now I'm disappointed that the highest
    resolutions Southpeak included were 1024x768, since I now use
    several of Adams' shots for Windows wallpaper, and they have to be
    stretched considerably to fill the screen, noticeably reducing the
    apparent sharpness of the images. Still pretty good, though.
    ASAAR, Sep 20, 2006
    #8
  9. Dan

    Rod Williams Guest

    Dan wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > This may sound like a stupid question:
    >
    > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Dan
    >

    Today that may be all you want to do but down the road you might have
    that perfect picture that you want printed at 8X10 or even larger. Then
    you will kick yourself for shooting at a lower resolution.
    Rod Williams, Sep 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Dan

    John Turco Guest

    Bates wrote:
    >
    > Dan wrote:
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > This may sound like a stupid question:
    > >
    > > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Dan

    >
    > Hi Dan,
    >
    > The main advantage that I can think of would be that you cannot be
    > certain that the composition of the photo that you shoot will be
    > exactly what you want. As such, you may wish to crop your images to
    > focus in on a smaller area of the original picture while maintaining
    > enough resolution to view it full screen. So in that case, a high res
    > image would still be of use.
    >
    > I see your point - if on screen viewing is all you are ever going to
    > use the pictures for - you may not need to shoot at higher res, but I
    > would be seriously tempted to still shoot at full resolution because a)
    > you may change your mind down the road or b) you may get an even higher
    > resolution monitor one day.
    >
    > Bates....



    Hello, Bates:

    Along similar lines, higher resolution gives you more to work with,
    later. You can always resize (or resample), if you want a smaller (in
    dimension) image, but it isn't viable, in reverse...you can't make a
    little picture, much bigger. (Not without severe pixelation, that is.)

    As huge hard drives are so relatively inexpensive, nowadays, there's
    plenty of storage space for larger digital files. Thus, it's smart
    to grab as many digicam megapixels as possible, and also to use loftier
    DPI rates, when scanning.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Sep 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Dan

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Yes, the extra resolution also gives you more details in the images. Only a
    fool would do what you said. You always shoot with the most resolution
    possible you never know when you will need it. If your not going to do than
    then why bother with a digital camera.

    R


    "Rod Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:rDFQg.4130$ht6.3018@trndny06...
    > Dan wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> This may sound like a stupid question:
    >>
    >> If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    >> does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    >> than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Dan
    >>

    > Today that may be all you want to do but down the road you might have that
    > perfect picture that you want printed at 8X10 or even larger. Then you
    > will kick yourself for shooting at a lower resolution.
    Hebee Jeebes, Sep 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Dan

    Bates Guest

    John Turco wrote:
    > Bates wrote:
    > >
    > > Dan wrote:
    > > > Hello,
    > > >
    > > > This may sound like a stupid question:
    > > >
    > > > If I only plan on viewing my photos on my computer desktop (1600x1200),
    > > > does it do any good at all to take pictures at any resolution higher
    > > > than 1600x1200? If not, my 7.1mp camera may as well be a 2.0mp..
    > > >
    > > > Thanks,
    > > > Dan

    > >
    > > Hi Dan,
    > >
    > > The main advantage that I can think of would be that you cannot be
    > > certain that the composition of the photo that you shoot will be
    > > exactly what you want. As such, you may wish to crop your images to
    > > focus in on a smaller area of the original picture while maintaining
    > > enough resolution to view it full screen. So in that case, a high res
    > > image would still be of use.
    > >
    > > I see your point - if on screen viewing is all you are ever going to
    > > use the pictures for - you may not need to shoot at higher res, but I
    > > would be seriously tempted to still shoot at full resolution because a)
    > > you may change your mind down the road or b) you may get an even higher
    > > resolution monitor one day.
    > >
    > > Bates....

    >
    >
    > Hello, Bates:
    >
    > Along similar lines, higher resolution gives you more to work with,
    > later. You can always resize (or resample), if you want a smaller (in
    > dimension) image, but it isn't viable, in reverse...you can't make a
    > little picture, much bigger. (Not without severe pixelation, that is.)
    >
    > As huge hard drives are so relatively inexpensive, nowadays, there's
    > plenty of storage space for larger digital files. Thus, it's smart
    > to grab as many digicam megapixels as possible, and also to use loftier
    > DPI rates, when scanning.
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    John,

    I totally agree. In addition, in most cases, viewing software will
    simply scale even the large images down to "best-fit" the monitor and
    with a relatively fast computer and video card, there is pretty much no
    time lag to do so anyhow. The only time I ever downsample the image is
    to post it to a website or email it.

    Bates....
    Bates, Sep 23, 2006
    #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. Jack Yeazel

    ISO Resolution Chart and Printing Resolution

    Jack Yeazel, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,202
    Jack Yeazel
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. Simon

    Resolution resolution

    Simon, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    450
    Simon
    Feb 27, 2004
  3. slonkak

    LCD TV resolution / DVD resolution ?

    slonkak, Nov 13, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,170
    slonkak
    Nov 13, 2006
  4. hassy_user
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    765
    Bart van der Wolf
    Oct 27, 2004
  5. HS Crow
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    726
    HS Crow
    Sep 23, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page