Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photo Resolution

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:31:22 PM

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

Hi,

I just received a Casio Exilim EX-P700 as a gift. It is an upgrade from
my old Kodak DC290. Here's the thing. I have been shooting the Kodak at
highest resolution, 1792x1200. The pix come out between 300 and 700 kb
depending on pixel depth (I use minimal compression). I have been using
the Exilim at its highest resolution (3072x2304) which I am estimating
will make pix around 2.2 MB in size using "normal" compression. That
means my new pix will take up 3x more HD space. So my question is, do I
really need to take them that big? The camera has a 1600x1200 setting
which would make them the same resolution as my LCD monitor.

One thing with the Kodak is that it focusses very poorly, especially in
darker settings. So I frequently shrink the pix down to a higher dpi
and then use filter>sharpen which usually works well - although this
decreases the usable print sizes. I am hoping this won't be an issue
with the Elixim.

Any advice or info would be appreciated. Not looking particularly for
hands-on with this exact camera. Just anyone who has mucked around and
has some good advice.

Thanks!

More about : photo resolution

May 30, 2005 10:41:16 PM

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

<dewey3k@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117477881.951041.254410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I just received a Casio Exilim EX-P700 as a gift. It is an upgrade from
> my old Kodak DC290. Here's the thing. I have been shooting the Kodak at
> highest resolution, 1792x1200. The pix come out between 300 and 700 kb
> depending on pixel depth (I use minimal compression). I have been using
> the Exilim at its highest resolution (3072x2304) which I am estimating
> will make pix around 2.2 MB in size using "normal" compression. That
> means my new pix will take up 3x more HD space. So my question is, do I
> really need to take them that big? The camera has a 1600x1200 setting
> which would make them the same resolution as my LCD monitor.
>
> One thing with the Kodak is that it focusses very poorly, especially in
> darker settings. So I frequently shrink the pix down to a higher dpi
> and then use filter>sharpen which usually works well - although this
> decreases the usable print sizes. I am hoping this won't be an issue
> with the Elixim.
>
> Any advice or info would be appreciated. Not looking particularly for
> hands-on with this exact camera. Just anyone who has mucked around and
> has some good advice.
>
> Thanks!
>
You can certainly make bigger prints with the Casio. I always use the
highest setting because I certainly did not buy the D70 to make images at
3mp. With disk prices so low these days, it seems questionable to be
worrying about the difference between 700kb and 2.2mb. Gee, my tiff images
wound up being 18mb!
Jim
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 12:28:01 AM

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

BTW, your camera resolution has nothing to do with your LCD monitor's
resolution!

Also, Filter | Sharpen may be a workaround for fuzzy pictures, but it is
nothing like the real McCoy, i.e. pictures that were born sharp!


<dewey3k@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117477881.951041.254410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I just received a Casio Exilim EX-P700 as a gift. It is an upgrade from
> my old Kodak DC290. Here's the thing. I have been shooting the Kodak at
> highest resolution, 1792x1200. The pix come out between 300 and 700 kb
> depending on pixel depth (I use minimal compression). I have been using
> the Exilim at its highest resolution (3072x2304) which I am estimating
> will make pix around 2.2 MB in size using "normal" compression. That
> means my new pix will take up 3x more HD space. So my question is, do I
> really need to take them that big? The camera has a 1600x1200 setting
> which would make them the same resolution as my LCD monitor.
>
> One thing with the Kodak is that it focusses very poorly, especially in
> darker settings. So I frequently shrink the pix down to a higher dpi
> and then use filter>sharpen which usually works well - although this
> decreases the usable print sizes. I am hoping this won't be an issue
> with the Elixim.
>
> Any advice or info would be appreciated. Not looking particularly for
> hands-on with this exact camera. Just anyone who has mucked around and
> has some good advice.
>
> Thanks!
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 12:57:24 AM

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

dewey3k@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just received a Casio Exilim EX-P700 as a gift. It is an upgrade
> from my old Kodak DC290. Here's the thing. I have been shooting the
> Kodak at highest resolution, 1792x1200. The pix come out between 300
> and 700 kb depending on pixel depth (I use minimal compression). I
> have been using the Exilim at its highest resolution (3072x2304)
> which I am estimating will make pix around 2.2 MB in size using
> "normal" compression. That means my new pix will take up 3x more HD
> space. So my question is, do I really need to take them that big?

Only you can answer that question. If you are satisfied with the
results, you don't need to change anything. If you want better results,
especially with larger size prints, try it and see, I suspect you will want
to use the largest size.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:18:00 PM

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

Hi Dewey,

I would guess that it depends some on what you want to do with your images.
If you are not going to be printing them or saving them for the future, then
more than likely a lesser setting will do fine. Keep in mind, though, that
the file size sort of relates to how grain might be reviewed in film. The
more data you have in the file, The less noise (grain) you will see in the
image. The file size you noted is quite large and capable of large
enlargements. I suspect that the camera has other settings that will let you
capture the images at a lesser file size.

Also, and I am sure you are aware, that you can resize your images keeping
the important data intact. They can always be resized to original features
if you want. Just takes you a bit more handling of the images. If you have
Photoshop or a similar program, there are auto tools that will let you run a
macro on the images to resize them as you will.

Good luck with the camera, I am sure you will enjoy it.

Best Regards,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




<dewey3k@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117477881.951041.254410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I just received a Casio Exilim EX-P700 as a gift. It is an upgrade from
> my old Kodak DC290. Here's the thing. I have been shooting the Kodak at
> highest resolution, 1792x1200. The pix come out between 300 and 700 kb
> depending on pixel depth (I use minimal compression). I have been using
> the Exilim at its highest resolution (3072x2304) which I am estimating
> will make pix around 2.2 MB in size using "normal" compression. That
> means my new pix will take up 3x more HD space. So my question is, do I
> really need to take them that big? The camera has a 1600x1200 setting
> which would make them the same resolution as my LCD monitor.
>
> One thing with the Kodak is that it focusses very poorly, especially in
> darker settings. So I frequently shrink the pix down to a higher dpi
> and then use filter>sharpen which usually works well - although this
> decreases the usable print sizes. I am hoping this won't be an issue
> with the Elixim.
>
> Any advice or info would be appreciated. Not looking particularly for
> hands-on with this exact camera. Just anyone who has mucked around and
> has some good advice.
>
> Thanks!
>
June 3, 2005 12:59:07 AM

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

"Ronald Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
d7nsn5$n87$1@news.kodak.com...
> Hi Dewey,
>
>
> Also, and I am sure you are aware, that you can resize your images keeping
> the important data intact. They can always be resized to original features
> if you want. Just takes you a bit more handling of the images.


And a lot of magic powder.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 5:18:49 AM

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

Mike wrote:
> "Ronald Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> d7nsn5$n87$1@news.kodak.com...
>
>>Hi Dewey,
>>
>>
>>Also, and I am sure you are aware, that you can resize your images keeping
>>the important data intact. They can always be resized to original features
>>if you want. Just takes you a bit more handling of the images.
>
>
>
> And a lot of magic powder.
>

Or at least a vivid imagination :) 
!