Resolution

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?".
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

"Dan" <dan_hoffard.RemoveThis@hailmail.net> wrote in message
news:1158757479.526092.18710@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

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" <dan_hoffard DeleteThis @hailmail.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1158757479.526092.18710@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> 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
>
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

"Dan" <dan_hoffard.RemoveThis@hailmail.net> schreef in bericht
news:1158757479.526092.18710@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

"Dan" <dan_hoffard.TakeThisOut@hailmail.net> schreef in bericht
news:1158757479.526092.18710@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

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" <rodw RemoveThis @adelphia.net> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

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 <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution 

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 <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>

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....
 >> Stay informed about: Resolution