Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Newbie: Please help

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:38:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536 and
then batch compress them?

In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?

Many thanks.

Bob McKenzie

More about : newbie

Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:38:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you are sure they are purely for emailing purposes, don't waste your time
shooting them larger and then sizing them down. Most computer monitor's (Mac
and PC) are limited to showing at 72dpi as a maximum apparent video
resolution. Any sizing differences between your camera and your software
will be so negligable at this size that I dare any human eye to be able to
tell.

If you're going to be printing these images, that's another story.


"Bob Mckenzie" <bob@webgrid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1107671889.29532.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
> camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536
> and
> then batch compress them?
>
> In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Bob McKenzie
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:38:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Mckenzie <bob@webgrid.co.uk> wrote:

> For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
> camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536 and
> then batch compress them?

That depends on a lot of things, including whether you really want to go
to the trouble of running the batch compression. It might be that the
batch compressor program can make smaller files for emailing. That is,
if you set the camera to 1024x768 and maximum compression, it might
still make a 150K+ file. That might be too big for your purposes.

> In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?

Take some pictures at the smaller resolution. Then take some bigger
ones. Shrink the bigger ones on your computer. Compare them to the
smaller ones. Then you'll know. :-)
Related resources
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 10:49:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I suspect that all cameras perform differently, you would need to try both
ways with your particular camera. Personally I would take the photos at
highest resolution then convert.

"Bob Mckenzie" <bob@webgrid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1107671889.29532.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
> camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536
> and
> then batch compress them?
>
> In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Bob McKenzie
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:31:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 06:38:08 -0000, "Bob Mckenzie" <bob@webgrid.co.uk>
wrote:

>For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
>camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536 and
>then batch compress them?
>
>In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?

The difference in image quality is probably not large, but I would
recommend taking the pictures at a larger size so you have the option of
cropping them before resizing.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:05:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 04:41:52 -0500, "Jason P." <pillowhead@canada.com>
wrote:

>If you are sure they are purely for emailing purposes, don't waste your time
>shooting them larger and then sizing them down. Most computer monitor's (Mac
>and PC) are limited to showing at 72dpi as a maximum apparent video
>resolution. Any sizing differences between your camera and your software
>will be so negligable at this size that I dare any human eye to be able to
>tell.

A nit...
72 DPI for monitors is outdated today.
Most start at about 90 or so, and go up from there.
As screen resolution goes up, so does DPI; of course, it's complicated
as screen sizes go up, too, but a simple exercise with your screen, a
ruler, and a calculator will probably show around 90 DPI or so.

As tot he OP's question, I'll say always shoot at max definition; you
never know when one oft hose "for email only" pics will turn out to be
a real winner.
It's easy to downsize; the opposite isn't true.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:05:19 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 04:41:52 -0500, "Jason P." <pillowhead@canada.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If you are sure they are purely for emailing purposes, don't waste your time
>>shooting them larger and then sizing them down. Most computer monitor's (Mac
>>and PC) are limited to showing at 72dpi as a maximum apparent video
>>resolution. Any sizing differences between your camera and your software
>>will be so negligable at this size that I dare any human eye to be able to
>>tell.
>
>A nit...
>72 DPI for monitors is outdated today.
>Most start at about 90 or so, and go up from there.
>As screen resolution goes up, so does DPI; of course, it's complicated
>as screen sizes go up, too, but a simple exercise with your screen, a
>ruler, and a calculator will probably show around 90 DPI or so.
>
>As tot he OP's question, I'll say always shoot at max definition; you
>never know when one oft hose "for email only" pics will turn out to be
>a real winner.
>It's easy to downsize; the opposite isn't true.

Sorry, on reading this, I realize that I made a very common mistake;
DPI should be PPI.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:44:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Mckenzie wrote:

> For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
> camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536 and
> then batch compress them?
>
> In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?

FWIW, I find taking a large image then resampling it to a smaller
resolution sometimes offers a small improvement in image quality.

It's most noticeable with grainy (high ISO) shots and ones that aren't
as sharp as they could be.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:31:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you all for your advice.

Regards

Bob Mckenzie

"Jason P." <pillowhead@canada.com> wrote in message
news:D DlNd.20916$m22.17158@read1.cgocable.net...
> If you are sure they are purely for emailing purposes, don't waste your
time
> shooting them larger and then sizing them down. Most computer monitor's
(Mac
> and PC) are limited to showing at 72dpi as a maximum apparent video
> resolution. Any sizing differences between your camera and your software
> will be so negligable at this size that I dare any human eye to be able to
> tell.
>
> If you're going to be printing these images, that's another story.
>
>
> "Bob Mckenzie" <bob@webgrid.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1107671889.29532.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> > For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that
my
> > camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536
> > and
> > then batch compress them?
> >
> > In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Bob McKenzie
> >
> >
> >
>
>
February 6, 2005 7:57:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1107671889.29532.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net>, bob@webgrid.co.uk
says...
>
>For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
>camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536 and
>then batch compress them?
>
>In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?
>
>Many thanks.
>
>Bob McKenzie

Bob,

If the photographs are for your personal use only, and you are able to "gaze
into a crystal ball," to determine that they will NEVER be used/needed in a
higher rez/size, then shooting for your minimum requirements will be the
quickest and easiest on your CF (or otherwise) card real estate. That said,
however, a recent post into several of the Photoshop and photography NGs
points up a potential problem. The OP was told that his/her shots were ONLY to
be used in the company's Web site, so they were shot 640x480, high-
compression JPG. The boss came by and wanted to do large prints and include
several shots in company advertising. The OP was then wondering how to
increase both the size and resolution of these images to allow for the new
needs, without loss of quality. The short answer is: you can't get there from
here. So long as you NEVER need more rez, or size, you are fine, but if you
ever do, you are out of luck.

Because I've been in advertising photography for most of my life, I always err
on the other side, creating the largest logical images, and, if digital
capture is used, at the highest rez. Do I need this "overkill" for all my
images? NO! But, if I ever do, I have the best that I could create at the
time.

Just some thoughts,
Hunt
February 7, 2005 1:09:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It would be so simple to try it both ways and email it to yourself and
decide for yourself if there is a difference.


"Bob Mckenzie" <bob@webgrid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1107671889.29532.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> For producing images for emailing at 1024x768 is it best to ensure that my
> camera takes them at this resolution or should I take them at 2048x1536
and
> then batch compress them?
>
> In the latter case, is the resulting image of better quality or equal?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Bob McKenzie
>
>
>
!