Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why Do You Need 5 Megapixels?

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:19:39 AM

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

I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.

Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?

The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048 x
1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.

I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about 600
KB.

The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to get
when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So, if you
are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take such large
KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so you have to
cut it down to send it.

So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff

More about : megapixels

Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:17:17 AM

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

"Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> writes:

> I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
> megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?

You don't, for prints that size.

Many of us think of ourselves as serious photographers (or serious
photographic hobbyists, if you like), and are always hoping to take a
picture that deserves better than a 4x6 print. And we don't think we
can be sure to know in advance we've got it, or that we will for sure
have time to change the camera settings, or that we'll *remember*
(since the specially good photos often come from a surprising event,
or when we're really engrossed in the photography). So we put up with
the bigger files most of the time to have the extra resolution now and
then when we need it.

You won't see any visible difference between 5 and 2 megapixels on a
4x6 uncropped print.
--
David Dyer-Bennet
Recovering from server meltdown! Email and web service on www.dd-b.net
including all virtual domains (demesne.com, ellegon.com, dragaera.info,
mnstf.org, and many others) is rudimentary and intermittent.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:18:34 AM

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

Jeff G wrote:
> I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
> megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
> file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048 x
> 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about 600
> KB.
>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to get
> when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So, if you
> are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take such large
> KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so you have to
> cut it down to send it.
>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
> lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff
>
>
>
>
That depends on how discriminating you are relative to picture quality.
Certainly, a 4x6 print from 1600x1200 is a very good print. The main
reason for higher resolutions is to allow flexibility in printing size,
and editing. I suggest you buy a few more flash cards (they are very
cheap now), and don't worry too much about file size. Someday, you may
be glad you had the extra resolution.
The point being, that you can't increase the resolution later, but you
CAN reduce it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
July 27, 2005 6:23:24 AM

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

"Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?


Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability to
crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
July 27, 2005 7:30:38 AM

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

Not to flame but:
Attitudes like this are the reason Kodak feasted for years marketing the
worst schlock imaginable to consumers who could not imagine why they would
need or want anything better. Why not just get a combination phone/camera
and kill 2 birds with one gadget?
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:18:09 AM

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

> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?

I saw a program on TV once that showed all the known photos and films of the
Kennedy assasination. Of all the people there with cameras, and there were
several still and a couple of film cameras, not one user knew what they were
doing. If you were there with a digital camera wouldn't you want to take the
best shot possible? You won't have time to make adjustments so you should
have it set up for the best all the time. Your once-in-a-lifetime shot may
come at any moment...be ready for it.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:37:58 AM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> writes:
>
>
>>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>>
>>Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
>>megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
>
> You don't, for prints that size.
>
> Many of us think of ourselves as serious photographers (or serious
> photographic hobbyists, if you like), and are always hoping to take a
> picture that deserves better than a 4x6 print. And we don't think we
> can be sure to know in advance we've got it, or that we will for sure
> have time to change the camera settings, or that we'll *remember*
> (since the specially good photos often come from a surprising event,
> or when we're really engrossed in the photography). So we put up with
> the bigger files most of the time to have the extra resolution now and
> then when we need it.
>
> You won't see any visible difference between 5 and 2 megapixels on a
> 4x6 uncropped print.

Hi...

I wonder if it might be helpful to newbies to the hobby if
I dared to make this analogy...

Let's try to compare using 1 or 2 mp to using 35 mm film,
and 5 or more mp to using a medium format film ?

Having said that; if I use mf I have the high cost of
film and processing for each and every shot I take. But
with digital there's zero cost involved.

Given that, we never know when we might accidentally stumble
onto the worlds best picture and worlds best shot. Whether
it be the napalm'ed little girl in Vietnam, or the glint in
a grandkids eye, one truly deserving of an mf shot and a
poster sized print.

Take them all at the best quality possible - they're easy to
downsample later if warranted, but impossible to (nicely)
upsample :) 

Ken
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:37:59 AM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:37:58 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:

> Given that, we never know when we might accidentally stumble
> onto the worlds best picture and worlds best shot. Whether
> it be the napalm'ed little girl in Vietnam, or the glint in
> a grandkids eye, one truly deserving of an mf shot and a
> poster sized print.

Two things to disagree with here. Had 2mp cameras been available
back then and if it had been used to take the picture of that girl,
the photos printed in newspapers all over the world would have been
just as dramatic, and probably just as sharp, in the newspapers,
anyway. Second, I know many grandparents that love looking at
pictures of their grandkids, but they almost all keep most in a box
or album, put a few in small frames, and sometimes many on the
refrigerator. Not because the images aren't sharp enough to make an
8"x10" or larger, but because they _don't do_ that. I've
occasionally suggested something larger than 4"x6", but they're
happy with that, and usually prefer 3 1/2"x5" (at least for the
fridge). Maybe the few that groom their little princesses like
prancing ponies and enter them in beauty pageants want large super
high quality prints, but that's not the same thing, and they've
probably hired someone with a high end DSLR, SLR or MF already.
July 27, 2005 8:39:10 AM

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

If you never do larger tahn 4x6 then perhaps 3.2Mp is all that you
need.
Because the labs take the data and print @ about 300dpi.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:21:27 AM

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

"Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:weCFe.18588$iG6.16985@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>>
>> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
>> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
>
> Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
> to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.

Yes you do know about him, he said he will not print bigger than 4x6, oh
course if you can crop you waist many of your pixels.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:25:35 AM

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

Jeff G wrote:
> I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I
> need 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x
> 6"?
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very
> large file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it
> down to 2048 x 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of
> about 600 KB.

I would suggest reducing the file size by using a lower JPEG quality
setting, rather than by redcuing resolution. Keep the 2560 x 1920, but
use "Normal" instead of "Fine" quality (or whatever your camera calls it).
I would also comment that 521MB and 1GB SD memory cards are not that
expensive.....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:37:51 PM

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

"Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
> file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures).

Why is that a 'very large file size' ? Very Large relative to what?

> I have been cutting it down to 2048 x
> 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.

So?
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about
> 600 KB.

I wonder if you doing something like trying to use the 16Mb (or whatever)
memory card that came with the camera? Do you realise you can buy bigger
ones? And that they can be swapped, the one in the camera isnt fixed in
place?

>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to
> get when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So,
> if you are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take
> such large KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so
> you have to cut it down to send it.

So if you had one person who could only accept pictures at 30kb, would you
take all your pictures at 30kb?
>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will
> I lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff
>

Yes. When you find even an average shot, when you couldnt or didnt get close
enough, and you'd like to get a small section blown up to 6 x4. Or when
there is some distracting thing in the shot and you'd like to crop that out.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:51:54 PM

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

>>I saw a program on TV once that showed all the known photos and films of
the
>>Kennedy assasination. Of all the people there with cameras, and there were
>>several still and a couple of film cameras, not one user knew what they
were
>>doing. If you were there with a digital camera wouldn't you want to take
the
>>best shot possible? You won't have time to make adjustments so you should
>>have it set up for the best all the time. Your once-in-a-lifetime shot may
>>come at any moment...be ready for it.

Just as an aside (I'm not even sure myself what point I am making here), on
the evening of the London tube bombings the TV news included video footage
shot on passengers' camera phones. As you can imagine, your average pocket
phone does not match the world's most sophisticated TV camera by many orders
of magnitude. Nevertheless, the dramatic impact of that footage was not,
IMHO, reduced in any way by the quality of the images. In a strange way it
even seemed to be enhanced by it.

I understand what folks are saying about always shoot at top quality. I can
appreciate some of the arguments but I would rather have got some photos of
Kennedy's assasination at 2MP than to have my camera set to 5MP only to
discover that the card filled up at the vital moment and I missed the action
whilst I deleted some photos of granny.

I have quite an old camera that only goes up to 2MP but I don't even use
that at full resolution most of the time. Almost never to I print more than
6x4 and hardly ever crop - I bought a camera with a 10x optical zoom so I
don't have to. Bear in mind, though, that I have no aspirations to be more
than a competent holiday snapper. If I do chance to hit that
once-in-a-lifetime shot I shall just be happy to be there with my camera and
I don't think I shall lose any sleep over the resolution not being high
enough.

As another aside, I wonder what tales there are out there of "the one that
got away". The only one I can remember was on a French mountain side in the
morning mists, when I rounded a corner to come face to face with a mouflon.
Of course, the camera chose that moment to decide that there was no more
power in the batteries.

Regards
Keith
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:09:51 PM

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

> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
> lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff

for most users, no. 2MP (1600x1200 ish) is perfectly fine. I
wouldn't go smaller than that - if you ever need a larger print, this
will be the loweest resolution you'd want to go. Smaller, to 1MP, is
okay still for most images even, but I'd stick at 2MP or so. (That'll
give you around 1600/6" = 266 lines per inch of resolution, which is
pretty darn good --- above 150-200 lpi will give you nice prints.)
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:24:09 PM

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

cropping
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:44:10 PM

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

> I would suggest reducing the file size by using a lower JPEG quality
> setting, rather than by redcuing resolution. Keep the 2560 x 1920, but
> use "Normal" instead of "Fine" quality (or whatever your camera calls it).


Can you explain why?

Isn't a small but better quality picture better than a large but poorer
quality one ?

Pete
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:44:11 PM

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

P Darby wrote:
>> I would suggest reducing the file size by using a lower JPEG quality
>> setting, rather than by redcuing resolution. Keep the 2560 x 1920,
>> but use "Normal" instead of "Fine" quality (or whatever your camera
>> calls it).
>
>
> Can you explain why?
>
> Isn't a small but better quality picture better than a large but
> poorer quality one ?
>
> Pete

There have been many posts already explaining why, but in essence the way
that JPEG works, any imperfections may be smaller and less visible with an
image with more pixels but saved at a lower quality setting. Yes, the
artefact may be greater with the reduced quality image, but because it is
smaller it may be nearer the limit of the eye's ability to see the
imperfection. Remember that JPEG is very well designed so that the
imperfections it introduces are, in general difficult to see under normal
viewing circumstances.

There are also other effects - for example using 5MP rather than 3MP you
are nearer to the limit of the lens, so that the edges are relatively not
as sharp (they will take more pixels to go from black to white), and hence
the JPEG compression does not have so much high spatial frequency
information to store, and may be able to give better results.

This depends on exactly how the JPEG is implemented on the camera, so you
would need to do tests to confirm exactly what is best with the sort of
images you typically take. When judging the results, be sure to do so
under typical viewing circumstances. Zooming right in to your image on
your display may show imperfections that would be invisible under normal
viewing conditions.

Some cameras do have a reputation for excessive JPEG compression, and on
such cameras indeed the smaller image with less compression might be
better. You do need to test for yourself.

Cheers,
David
July 27, 2005 4:06:15 PM

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

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:XBGFe.64062$oJ.23026@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:weCFe.18588$iG6.16985@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>>>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>>>
>>> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I
>>> need 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x
>>> 6"?
>>
>>
>> Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
>> to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
>
> Yes you do know about him, he said he will not print bigger than 4x6, oh
> course if you can crop you waist many of your pixels.
>

The word is "waste" and no, I wouldn't be wasting anything.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:21:57 PM

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

Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?


"Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
>
> Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
> to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
>
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:21:58 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:21:57 GMT, "russell hobman"
<rhobman@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?

And yet, so many people have cameras that don't quite reach out enough
to properly compose that shot; they need to crop to get it right.
Knowledge (or lack of it) isn't always the problem. Often it's a
hardware problem.
>
>
>"Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
>>
>> Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
>> to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
>>
>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
July 27, 2005 5:10:08 PM

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

In article <11eepbs3v2ek4a9@corp.supernews.com>, Bill@microsoft.com says...
> > I would suggest reducing the file size by using a lower JPEG quality
> > setting, rather than by redcuing resolution. Keep the 2560 x 1920, but
> > use "Normal" instead of "Fine" quality (or whatever your camera calls it).
>
>
> Can you explain why?
>
> Isn't a small but better quality picture better than a large but poorer
> quality one ?
>
> Pete
>
>
>

The defining difference is whether you want to take snapshots, or
photographs. For "snapshots" the reduced resolution doesnt matter, as you
are only trying to capture a memory in a small inconsequential image.

If you are taking "photgraphs" and you actually care about the quality of the
image, you might get something worth preserving, and then you would want to
get the most possible resolution in the photo as you capture it. You can
always go back to a place and re-shoot, but you cant EVER go back to a time
and get a do-over.

Buying a larger memory chip is easy (and relatively cheap) getting a do-over
is impossible, its your choice.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:48:48 PM

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

"Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
> file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048
> x 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about
> 600 KB.
>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to
> get when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So,
> if you are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take
> such large KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so
> you have to cut it down to send it.
>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will
> I lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff

That resolution is adequate for 4 x 5.33 inch prints (the actual printing
size without cropping), but unless there's no way you can afford the space,
I'd still shoot at the highest resolution. Why? Because you never know what
you'll do with those pix in the future, and downsizing them is simple and
quick. Sooner or later, you'll need to archive those files onto something
optical, anyway, since HD space will run out someday, so why not shoot at
the full resolution of the camera? And, as you said, you'll still need to
reduce the file size for e-mailing, so why not start big?

>
>
>
>
July 27, 2005 7:36:58 PM

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

"Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:eHNFe.20224$bG4.19428@fe06.lga...
> cropping
>

Careful, Russ Hobman will be along any minute to tell you that you're an
incompetent photographer since you need to crop.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 7:36:59 PM

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

Rick wrote:

>
> "Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:eHNFe.20224$bG4.19428@fe06.lga...
>> cropping
>>
>
> Careful, Russ Hobman will be along any minute to tell you that you're an
> incompetent photographer since you need to crop.

I might not 'need' to crop, but say I take a photo of a beautiful model, a
portrait photo. I could stop there, be satisfied that I took a great photo.
But then I might want to get artistic and crop in on her eye perhaps for an
artistic additional photo; now if I had just taken the photo initially of
just the eye, I would not have had the photo of her portrait, etc. Not
being able to crop takes away creative artistic exploration.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:04:23 PM

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

Thanks to all of you who replied to my post. I think I have learned a lot -
which I guess is one of the main purposes of this newsgroup. The consensus
of the more than 30 responses to my query is:

1. I should go ahead and take pictures at the higher megapixels.
2. I can always reduce the size of the pictures for sending in E-Mails, etc.

It is interesting that you get a thread started and some people get into
arguments and call each other names! That's the Internet for you! Jeff.


"Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:i0CFe.6214$Zt.4667@okepread05...
>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
> file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048
> x 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about
> 600 KB.
>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to
> get when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So,
> if you are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take
> such large KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so
> you have to cut it down to send it.
>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will
> I lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff
>
>
>
>
July 27, 2005 8:41:18 PM

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

"Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:WBOFe.20232$bG4.13042@fe06.lga...
> Rick wrote:
>
>>
>> "Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:eHNFe.20224$bG4.19428@fe06.lga...
>>> cropping
>>>
>>
>> Careful, Russ Hobman will be along any minute to tell you that you're an
>> incompetent photographer since you need to crop.
>
> I might not 'need' to crop, but say I take a photo of a beautiful model, a
> portrait photo. I could stop there, be satisfied that I took a great
> photo.
> But then I might want to get artistic and crop in on her eye perhaps for
> an
> artistic additional photo; now if I had just taken the photo initially of
> just the eye, I would not have had the photo of her portrait, etc. Not
> being able to crop takes away creative artistic exploration.
>

You're preaching to the choir. I was simply stating that some bonehead
named Russ Hobman had jumped on my ass for saying I wanted the ability to
crop and still print out 8x10s and told me that I didn't know how to compose
a shot.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:18:52 PM

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

David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
>> lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff

> for most users, no. 2MP (1600x1200 ish) is perfectly fine. I
> wouldn't go smaller than that - if you ever need a larger print, this
> will be the loweest resolution you'd want to go. Smaller, to 1MP, is
> okay still for most images even, but I'd stick at 2MP or so. (That'll
> give you around 1600/6" = 266 lines per inch of resolution, which is
> pretty darn good --- above 150-200 lpi will give you nice prints.)

1 MP will work only if you are shooting exclusively for the web.

--
Julie
**********
Check out the blog of my 9 week Germany adventure at www.blurty.com/users/jholm
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:38:12 PM

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

Jeff G wrote:
>
> I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
> megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
> file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048 x
> 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about 600
> KB.
>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to get
> when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So, if you
> are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take such large
> KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so you have to
> cut it down to send it.
>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
> lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff

This question kind of gets me thinking of 'why do I need a ball of
string when I might only need a few inches?' and I guess I'd rather
have them and the option to use them than not. When you're stuck with
a 2mp and you really want to turn out something special you're more
limited, so you have more MPs and you choose what you want to use, in
the full knowledge that given the chance and the need you can go the
whole hog.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:45:17 PM

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

I have a Canon S400 (4 MP) and most the time I set it to 2 MP for snap
shots. A couple months ago, we went to Machu Pichu. I forgot to set
it back to 4 MP. I did bring other cameras (bigger) with me but did not
feel like to carry them. I'd like to to print some of the pictures at 8x10
and regret that they are at 2 MP. Otherwise the pictures will be
sharper. On the other hand, many times my CF is more than half full.
Then I would be out memory if I set it at 4 MP. My point is that, with
a higher MP camera, you have more options. At the same time, you
may forget to set it right.

In article <87vf2wsx0y.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> writes:
>
>> I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>>
>> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
>> megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
>You don't, for prints that size.
>
>Many of us think of ourselves as serious photographers (or serious
>photographic hobbyists, if you like), and are always hoping to take a
>picture that deserves better than a 4x6 print. And we don't think we
>can be sure to know in advance we've got it, or that we will for sure
>have time to change the camera settings, or that we'll *remember*
>(since the specially good photos often come from a surprising event,
>or when we're really engrossed in the photography). So we put up with
>the bigger files most of the time to have the extra resolution now and
>then when we need it.
>
>You won't see any visible difference between 5 and 2 megapixels on a
>4x6 uncropped print.
>--
>David Dyer-Bennet
>Recovering from server meltdown! Email and web service on www.dd-b.net
>including all virtual domains (demesne.com, ellegon.com, dragaera.info,
>mnstf.org, and many others) is rudimentary and intermittent.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:47:11 PM

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

"russell hobman" <rhobman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e77c50$1@news.comindico.com.au...

> "Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
> >
> > Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the
ability
> > to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
> >
> Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?

I disagree...

Sometimes you shoot a composed picture or on the spare of the moment and on
closer examination there is a nicer picture within it.

I had this last weekend when photographing a wedding. I was taking the
standard "throwing of the bouquet" picture and I took one of all the girls
lined up on the grass waiting.

I didn't notice at the time but two of the girls on the end are obviously
sharing a personnal joke and are almost crying with laughter.

I croped the picture to just the two girls and it is a great shot. The
original is still good......but a better shot was contained within.

If I had been shooting in 1600 x 1200 I would not have had enough pixels
left after I had cropped the shot for a decent print.
July 27, 2005 10:46:24 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:21:57 GMT, "russell hobman"
<rhobman@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?
>
>
>"Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
>>
>> Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
>> to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
>>
>

it's also useful as a zoom, I cn crop my 8MP images in half and still
get a decent 5x7, effectivly using the extra MP as a zoom lens.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:17:03 PM

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

Jeff G <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about 600
> KB.
>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to get
> when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So, if you
> are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take such large
> KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so you have to
> cut it down to send it.
>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
> lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff

You need 1440x960 to get a 4x6 print at 240ppi. You need more if you
plan to make larger prints without special resizing tools such as
GenuineFractals, if you want to have more room for cropping, or if you
want to be able to zoom in on a web image to pull out more detail on a
single spot you're curious about.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
July 28, 2005 12:08:58 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:19:39 -0500, "Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> wrote:

>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
>Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
>megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>
>The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
>file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048 x
>1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>
>I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about 600
>KB.
>
>The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
>hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to get
>when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So, if you
>are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take such large
>KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so you have to
>cut it down to send it.
>
>So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
>lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff
>

Normally you need from 200 to 300 dots per inch to print, so you can figure it
out...

You can also try setting the camera to a lower quality setting, I found that
even low quality jpeg on my camera looks fine as a snapshot, you only see a
difference if you zoom in, and you aren't doing that.

You got to try it!
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:59:38 AM

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

"Keith Sheppard" <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:KWHFe.4820$SO4.2126@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>>I saw a program on TV once that showed all the known photos and films of
> the
>>>Kennedy assasination. Of all the people there with cameras, and there
>>>were
>>>several still and a couple of film cameras, not one user knew what they
> were
>>>doing. If you were there with a digital camera wouldn't you want to take
> the
>>>best shot possible? You won't have time to make adjustments so you should
>>>have it set up for the best all the time. Your once-in-a-lifetime shot
>>>may
>>>come at any moment...be ready for it.
>
> Just as an aside (I'm not even sure myself what point I am making here),
> on
> the evening of the London tube bombings the TV news included video footage
> shot on passengers' camera phones. As you can imagine, your average
> pocket
> phone does not match the world's most sophisticated TV camera by many
> orders
> of magnitude. Nevertheless, the dramatic impact of that footage was not,
> IMHO, reduced in any way by the quality of the images. In a strange way
> it
> even seemed to be enhanced by it.
>
> I understand what folks are saying about always shoot at top quality. I
> can
> appreciate some of the arguments but I would rather have got some photos
> of
> Kennedy's assasination at 2MP than to have my camera set to 5MP only to
> discover that the card filled up at the vital moment and I missed the
> action
> whilst I deleted some photos of granny.

Well...suppose you got an image of the bomber but with such low resolution
you could not tell who it was? Wouldn't it be nice if the Polaroid of
Badge-man was better so we could see who it was and if he was really
shooting?
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 3:46:03 AM

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

Jeff G wrote:
>

> It is interesting that you get a thread started and some people get into
> arguments and call each other names! That's the Internet for you! Jeff.
>
no, that's USENET for you :o )



--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:15:16 AM

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

Gene Palmiter <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
>> 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?

>I saw a program on TV once that showed all the known photos and films of the
>Kennedy assasination. Of all the people there with cameras, and there were
>several still and a couple of film cameras, not one user knew what they were
>doing. If you were there with a digital camera wouldn't you want to take the
>best shot possible? You won't have time to make adjustments so you should
>have it set up for the best all the time. Your once-in-a-lifetime shot may
>come at any moment...be ready for it.

I agree. Which is why I keep my 300D set to autoeverything.
When there's time for adjustments, I make them.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:18:55 AM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:37:58 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:

>> Given that, we never know when we might accidentally stumble
>> onto the worlds best picture and worlds best shot. Whether
>> it be the napalm'ed little girl in Vietnam, or the glint in
>> a grandkids eye, one truly deserving of an mf shot and a
>> poster sized print.

> Two things to disagree with here. Had 2mp cameras been available
>back then and if it had been used to take the picture of that girl,
>the photos printed in newspapers all over the world would have been
>just as dramatic, and probably just as sharp, in the newspapers,
>anyway. Second, I know many grandparents that love looking at
>pictures of their grandkids, but they almost all keep most in a box
>or album, put a few in small frames, and sometimes many on the
>refrigerator. Not because the images aren't sharp enough to make an
>8"x10" or larger, but because they _don't do_ that. I've
>occasionally suggested something larger than 4"x6", but they're
>happy with that, and usually prefer 3 1/2"x5" (at least for the
>fridge). Maybe the few that groom their little princesses like
>prancing ponies and enter them in beauty pageants want large super
>high quality prints, but that's not the same thing, and they've
>probably hired someone with a high end DSLR, SLR or MF already.

You've posted an important truth. Pictures that never
get printed don't get looked at. 8x10s too large to
go on the fridge end up in boxes and don't get looked
at either. 3 1/2 x 5's get put onto the fridge, into
purses, into jacket pockets and get looked at.

For most photographers, that's the point, isn't it? To
take pictures folks want to look at.

---- Paul J. Gans
July 28, 2005 6:18:56 AM

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

Paul J Gans wrote:
> ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:37:58 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
>>>Given that, we never know when we might accidentally stumble
>>>onto the worlds best picture and worlds best shot. Whether
>>>it be the napalm'ed little girl in Vietnam, or the glint in
>>>a grandkids eye, one truly deserving of an mf shot and a
>>>poster sized print.
>
>
>> Two things to disagree with here. Had 2mp cameras been available
>>back then and if it had been used to take the picture of that girl,
>>the photos printed in newspapers all over the world would have been
>>just as dramatic, and probably just as sharp, in the newspapers,
>>anyway. Second, I know many grandparents that love looking at
>>pictures of their grandkids, but they almost all keep most in a box
>>or album, put a few in small frames, and sometimes many on the
>>refrigerator. Not because the images aren't sharp enough to make an
>>8"x10" or larger, but because they _don't do_ that. I've
>>occasionally suggested something larger than 4"x6", but they're
>>happy with that, and usually prefer 3 1/2"x5" (at least for the
>>fridge). Maybe the few that groom their little princesses like
>>prancing ponies and enter them in beauty pageants want large super
>>high quality prints, but that's not the same thing, and they've
>>probably hired someone with a high end DSLR, SLR or MF already.
>
>
> You've posted an important truth. Pictures that never
> get printed don't get looked at. 8x10s too large to
> go on the fridge end up in boxes and don't get looked
> at either. 3 1/2 x 5's get put onto the fridge, into
> purses, into jacket pockets and get looked at.
>
> For most photographers, that's the point, isn't it? To
> take pictures folks want to look at.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans


Of course it is, and the more personal the photo is, the more it's
regarded. Some photos are so personal as to be considered parts of the
family jewels, and the smallness keeps it personal, even private when
the jewel box is a wallet/purse, and opened for viewing by personal others.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:18:56 AM

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:18:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

> You've posted an important truth. Pictures that never
> get printed don't get looked at. 8x10s too large to
> go on the fridge end up in boxes and don't get looked
> at either. 3 1/2 x 5's get put onto the fridge, into
> purses, into jacket pockets and get looked at.
>
> For most photographers, that's the point, isn't it? To
> take pictures folks want to look at.

I only have one photo on the fridge and a lot of artwork from
nephews & nieces. But I still frequently look at favorite photos.
Saved as Windows wallpaper. :) 
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:43:15 PM

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

Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > "Jeff G" <JGTexas@newsgroup.com> writes:
> >
> >>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
> >>
> >> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do
> >> I need 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than
> >> 4" x 6"?
> > You don't, for prints that size. Many of us think of ourselves as
> > serious photographers (or serious
> > photographic hobbyists, if you like), and are always hoping to take a
> > picture that deserves better than a 4x6 print. And we don't think we
> > can be sure to know in advance we've got it, or that we will for sure
> > have time to change the camera settings, or that we'll *remember*
> > (since the specially good photos often come from a surprising event,
> > or when we're really engrossed in the photography). So we put up with
> > the bigger files most of the time to have the extra resolution now and
> > then when we need it. You won't see any visible difference between 5
> > and 2 megapixels on a
> > 4x6 uncropped print.

> I wonder if it might be helpful to newbies to the hobby if
> I dared to make this analogy...
>
> Let's try to compare using 1 or 2 mp to using 35 mm film,
> and 5 or more mp to using a medium format film ?

Probably not -- because that level of newby hasn't really had a chance
to compare MF to 35mm. At least not without the additional factor of
pro vs. amateur at the same time.

> Having said that; if I use mf I have the high cost of
> film and processing for each and every shot I take. But
> with digital there's zero cost involved.

Yep.

Many amateurs would take that analogy to mean that 1-2MP was plenty,
in the same way we work mostly with 35mm. Hmmm; maybe you're right
:-).

> Given that, we never know when we might accidentally stumble
> onto the worlds best picture and worlds best shot. Whether
> it be the napalm'ed little girl in Vietnam, or the glint in
> a grandkids eye, one truly deserving of an mf shot and a
> poster sized print.

And an awful lot of those famous poster prints were shot in 35mm,
too.

> Take them all at the best quality possible - they're easy to
> downsample later if warranted, but impossible to (nicely)
> upsample :) 

Yes, that's my approach. Both on my first 2MP digital and my current
6MP digital. But I don't shoot everything in RAW.
--
David Dyer-Bennet
Recovering from server meltdown! Email and web service on www.dd-b.net
including all virtual domains (demesne.com, ellegon.com, dragaera.info,
mnstf.org, and many others) is rudimentary and intermittent.
July 28, 2005 3:07:21 PM

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

My "albums" are on CD's

I show them on my 27" TV thru the DVD player.

I have no problem with sharpness or clarity.

I've set my camera to produce 400K jpg photo files.


<rj>
July 28, 2005 5:58:41 PM

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

Jeff G Jul 27, 3:19 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
From: "Jeff G" <JGTe...@newsgroup.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:19:39 -0500
Local: Wed,Jul 27 2005 3:19 am
Subject: Why Do You Need 5 Megapixels?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message

"I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I
need 5 megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4"
x6"?"

Why do you wish to make prints of 4"x6" only? When you compare that
size with 5"x7" you are missing a great deal of detail: I can well
remember the days of 5½" x 3½" and when 4"x6" came along that seemed
a great improvement - now, to me 4"x6" seems very inadequate.

Denis Boisclair
Cheshire, UK.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:57:12 AM

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

>>I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>>
>>Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need
>>5
>>megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?
>>
>>The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
>>file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048
>>x
>>1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>>
>>I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about
>>600
>>KB.
>>
>>The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
>>hard-drive. Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to
>>get
>>when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So, if
>>you
>>are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take such large
>>KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so you have to
>>cut it down to send it.
>>
>>So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will
>>I
>>lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print? Jeff
>>

1600 x 1200?
So you actually need no more than a 3 megapixel camera.

M.S.
July 31, 2005 7:52:17 PM

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

Jeff G wrote:
> I have a new 5 MP camera, a Casio Exilim Z55.
>
> Next week I will be on vacation, taking a lot of pictures. Why do I need 5
> megapixels, when I do not plan to make prints larger than 4" x 6"?

You might like a picture well enough to make larger prints. You can't always tell in
advance which ones it will be.
>
> The camera defaults to a resolution of 2560 x 1920, which gives very large
> file sizes (about 1600 KB pictures). I have been cutting it down to 2048 x
> 1536, but it still gives sizes of about 1100 KB each.
>
> I have cut it down further to 1600 x 1200 and it gives pictures of about 600
> KB.

You should also try changing the compression ratio (usually called "quality setting" in
the camera's manual". More compression gives smaller files, but too much compression can
cause artifacts. You can judge by experiment what trade-off is best.
>
> The downside is that it takes up more room when you store them on your
> hard-drive.

When you have about 600 Mb of files, burn them to a CD. That is a very inexpensive way to
store photos.

Also the large file sizes are difficult for some people to get
> when you send them on an E-Mail, so you have to cut it way down. So, if you
> are going to have to cut them down to send to anybody, why take such large
> KB pictures? Even 600 KB is big for sending in an E-Mail, so you have to
> cut it down to send it.

More and more people are getting fast Web connections. Even a couple of Mb can be sent by
e-mail or received in seconds.

>
> So, my question is if I take 1600 x 1200 pictures (or even smaller), will I
> lose any visible quality on a 4 x 6 print?

You will if you do a lot of cropping to make prints of a part of the image.

Anyway, be sure ot take enough memory cards. I hope you aren't trying to take a
vacation's worth of photos with the small memory card that came with the camera. But if
oyu rae, and don't have time to buy a new one, when it is full take it to a camera shop
that can copy your files to a CD. And make sure they are copied without any change
before you erase them from the memory card. If you take the card to a drug-store photo
counter, they are likely to reduce the size of the files without caring what happens to
the photos.

Jeff
>
>
>
>
July 31, 2005 8:05:14 PM

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

russell hobman wrote:
> Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?
>
>
> "Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
>
>>Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
>>to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
>>
>
>
The art of photography is done as much in the darkrom as when taking the picture.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:50:55 PM

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

Some good pictures require different aspect ratios than the
camera sensor. For example a wide angle shot of a sunrise
over a still lake printing a long narrow picture is much more
effective than a standard aspect ration print that is all sky.

Cropping and composition can be partners.

w..


russell hobman wrote:

> Sounds like you need to learn how to compose a picture?
>
> "Rick" <swtravlr@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
> >
> > Don't know about you, but I need MORE than 5MP because I like the ability
> > to crop off about half of a picture I took, then blow it up to 8x10.
> >
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:05:32 PM

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

One of my beefs with the Kodak DX7590 is the over compressed JPEG
images it saves. It has only two image saving options both JPEG and
fine mode compresses out a lot of detail. It does NOT have a raw
mode. Digial film and storage (cd's or dvd's) is so inexpensive that
detail reduction is not needed.

w..


David J Taylor wrote:

> I would suggest reducing the file size by using a lower JPEG quality
> setting, rather than by redcuing resolution. Keep the 2560 x 1920, but
> use "Normal" instead of "Fine" quality (or whatever your camera calls it).
> I would also comment that 521MB and 1GB SD memory cards are not that
> expensive.....
>
> Cheers,
> David
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:26:18 PM

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

Walter Banks wrote:
> One of my beefs with the Kodak DX7590 is the over compressed JPEG
> images it saves. It has only two image saving options both JPEG and
> fine mode compresses out a lot of detail. It does NOT have a raw
> mode. Digial film and storage (cd's or dvd's) is so inexpensive that
> detail reduction is not needed.
>
> w..

Yes, when I first got my Nikon 990 I was actaully surprised how good their
highest compression (smallest file size) JPEG images were. They seemed to
have tuned the JPEG parameters very well to suit the camera. There is an
art as well as a science in defining a JPEG compressor.

I have also heard that Kodak seem to have chosen their JPEG parameters
nothing like as well.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:30:02 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Walter Banks wrote:
>
>>One of my beefs with the Kodak DX7590 is the over compressed JPEG
>>images it saves. It has only two image saving options both JPEG and
>>fine mode compresses out a lot of detail. It does NOT have a raw
>>mode. Digial film and storage (cd's or dvd's) is so inexpensive that
>>detail reduction is not needed.
>>
>>w..
>
>
> Yes, when I first got my Nikon 990 I was actaully surprised how good their
> highest compression (smallest file size) JPEG images were. They seemed to
> have tuned the JPEG parameters very well to suit the camera. There is an
> art as well as a science in defining a JPEG compressor.
>
> I have also heard that Kodak seem to have chosen their JPEG parameters
> nothing like as well.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>

I think Kodak is only interested in selling cameras to people who print nothing
bigger than a 6x4 and aren't interested in image manipulation.

I'm surprised to hear that the DX7590 overcompresses the JPEGs. That was my
complaint with my DX6490, and they were supposed to be fixing the problem when
designing the 7590.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:22:39 PM

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

Ben Thomas wrote:

> I'm surprised to hear that the DX7590 overcompresses the JPEGs. That was my
> complaint with my DX6490, and they were supposed to be fixing the problem when
> designing the 7590.

There is a lot I like about the DX7590 as well however .

The JPEG compression in the most detailed mode leaves a lot to be
desired especially in light colors containing structure tends to be
blended into one continious color, it is interesting because the detail
can be seen in the electronic eyepiece.

When the color/brightness contrast is above some threshold
the detail is preserved. This means that the chest of a Hairy Woodpecker
shot from 4 feet away comes out a generic white area with no
feather detail and footprints on a damp sandy beach shot at a
similar distance in the early morning can see every grain of
sand in the image.

w..
..
!