Image resolution and picture size (in pixels)

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

News <Keith@nohtsystems.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> What would be the largest useful print be from settings of "SuperFine" and
> 1024x768 pixels on an S1 IS?

Really depends on what you want. I would think anything over 6x4 would
look pretty grainy, though.

Imaging bigots reckon 300dpi is essential, most people find 200dpi OK
for casual prints, 6"x4" is going to be a bit less than that...

Simplest thing to do is *TRY IT*. If you think your 1024x768 pictures
look ok at 6"x4", go for it.

I'd invest in a couple more CF cards and shoot at the camera's full
resolution, personally. They're hardly expensive.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" - HMHB

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

Shoot at the highest quality & largest size (short of TIFF, which you don't
have anyway) your camera is capable of. Period. No reason to have a 3
megapixel camera if you're going to have it mimick a 1-megapixel camera,
otherwise, you can find 1 megapixel cameras at yard sales for $25 these days
and save an awful lot of money.

CF is cheap these days; I go to Fred Miranda's website and it's nothing for
me to get a 256 megabyte card for $18-25.

LRH

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

<Markus.Wobisch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118691737.534061.156300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> If you want to save memory with the best quality I would propose to
> used "fine" (instead of super fine) with a higher resolution.
>
> Markus

Seems I've had a misunderstanding/confusion; are you saying size
(2048x1568,x1600x1200 etc) equates to resolution and (Canon's) SuprFine,
Fine and Normal equate to compression? So 2048x1568 at Fine is a better
trade-of than, say, 1024x768 at SuperFine?
Were money no problem, I would not have asked; just bought more CFs (and
bigger hard disc).
Keith

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

"Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news8m51o$ugu$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> News <Keith@nohtsystems.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : <Markus.Wobisch@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:1118691737.534061.156300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> : > If you want to save memory with the best quality I would propose to
> : > used "fine" (instead of super fine) with a higher resolution.
> : >
> : > Markus
>
> : Seems I've had a misunderstanding/confusion; are you saying size
> : (2048x1568,x1600x1200 etc) equates to resolution and (Canon's)
> : SuprFine, Fine and Normal equate to compression? So 2048x1568 at Fine
> : is a better trade-of than, say, 1024x768 at SuperFine?
>
> This is correct. No matter what compression you use (norm, fine, super)
> you will still get the same resolution (measured in dimensions in pixels).
> The more pixels, the more detail and the easier it is to crop and still
> get a useable print. Unless you plan on doing large scale blowups of the
> images, a slight reduction of the compression ratio have much less
> immediate effect on the resulting print than reducing resolution. Of
> course it is best to keep both resolution and compression as high as is
> acceptable to your situation. As time goes on, and you acquire more (and
> larger capacity) memory I would suggest increasing both as high as
> possible. It is always much easier to reduce resolution and/or compression
> after the fact than to add on missing data later.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL

Thanks Randy. A very clear and helpful explanation. I'm off on holiday a
happy bunny.

Keith