Always shoot at highest megapixel setting?

Rob wrote:
[]
> My logic is that shooting at the highest setting available would
> increase the amount of interpretation necessary by software to
> accomplish the reduction. That would be invalid though if the camera
> is itself using interpretation to produce the smaller size. In which
> case the greater flexiblity in choosing filters/algorithms by use of a
> good photo editor would likely outperform the reduction done by the
> camera.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Rob

Rob,

Yes, always record at the highest resolution. The camera uses
interpolation to reduce resolution, and that may be better left to
external software either in the PC (which can use better algorithms), or
in the display device itself (especially for a printer, which may know
more about the best interpolation for its particular physical
characteristics).

If you are considering file size (although that's much less of an issue
today), you may want to use a lower quality level to reduce file size.
Try it with your camera - results may vary - but I found that using
"normal" compression with the highest resolution image size, produced
better results than "fine" compression with the lower resolution, when
viewing images on the computer screen.

By the way: some cameras have a 6MP sensor and claim "interpolated" 12MP
results. I haven't tested such cameras, and the results above may be
completely invalid.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

On Feb 13, 2:14 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay... RemoveThis @blueyonder.neither-
this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

> Try it with your camera - results may vary - but I found that using
> "normal" compression with the highest resolution image size, produced
> better results than "fine" compression with the lower resolution, when
> viewing images on the computer screen.

Thank you David! I did not realize digital cameras provide control
over the level of compression applied as well as the resolution.

I understand your statement that sometimes using higher resolutions
with greater compression could produce a clearer "native" result, but
assuming a production environment of photos for display in web pages
it is usally practical to perform at least some post-processing
reduction. Under those circumstances the level of compression applied
by the camera seems might be more important than the resolution at
which the photos were shot. In other words, I may have asked the
wrong question to begin with.

For example, my camera (upon further investigation) provides only for
what Fuji describes as "Normal" compression at the lowest resolution
setting. At the next higher resolution, "Fine" and "Normal" are
provided. I'm thinking, as a rule of thumb with any digital camera
and knowing in advance that I'll invariably need to perform post-
process reduction, I should choose the smallest resolution providing
the "Fine" setting for compression (and use that Fine setting).

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

Rob
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:36:15 -0800 (PST), Rob <robbelljr.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote
in <345a1ddf-b28d-435f-a2df-2de012825328.TakeThisOut@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:

>Does a typical digital camera, regardless of user setting for target
>MP, capture all the data required to produce its highest MP image and
>then interpret the result to produce the smaller MP?

In most cases the camera downsamples the image.

>Or does the camera turn off sensors to directly produce an image with
>the targeted MP?

Not in most cases. One exception is a kind of zoom where the sensor
output is cropped.

>To put this in a practical light, only with regard to displaying
>images on a computer screen, I want to state authoritatively that it
>is better to set any given digital camera to produce an image closest
>in size to that at which it will ultimately be displayed.

Not in my experience.

>My logic is that shooting at the highest setting available would
>increase the amount of interpretation necessary by software to
>accomplish the reduction. That would be invalid though if the camera
>is itself using interpretation to produce the smaller size. In which
>case the greater flexiblity in choosing filters/algorithms by use of a
>good photo editor would likely outperform the reduction done by the
>camera.

Only when post-processing in RAW. Otherwise the digital camera will
probably do a better job.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

Rob wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:14 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay....RemoveThis@blueyonder.neither-
> this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Try it with your camera - results may vary - but I found that using
>> "normal" compression with the highest resolution image size, produced
>> better results than "fine" compression with the lower resolution,
>> when viewing images on the computer screen.
>
> Thank you David! I did not realize digital cameras provide control
> over the level of compression applied as well as the resolution.

OK, glad you've learned something.

> I understand your statement that sometimes using higher resolutions
> with greater compression could produce a clearer "native" result, but
> assuming a production environment of photos for display in web pages
> it is usally practical to perform at least some post-processing
> reduction. Under those circumstances the level of compression applied
> by the camera seems might be more important than the resolution at
> which the photos were shot. In other words, I may have asked the
> wrong question to begin with.
>
> For example, my camera (upon further investigation) provides only for
> what Fuji describes as "Normal" compression at the lowest resolution
> setting. At the next higher resolution, "Fine" and "Normal" are
> provided. I'm thinking, as a rule of thumb with any digital camera
> and knowing in advance that I'll invariably need to perform post-
> process reduction, I should choose the smallest resolution providing
> the "Fine" setting for compression (and use that Fine setting).
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob

Rob,

To be honest, as soon as you said "web pages" I immediately thought "shoot
at the lowest resolution and lowest quality setting (i.e. smallest file
size). Depending on your exact needs, that may be more than adequate.
Generally, for Web use, it's better to produce the fastest loading (i.e.
smallest file size) you can, even if a few JPEG artefacts are visible. If
these is any chance you will want to do something else with the photos,
that's different.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> To be honest, as soon as you said "web pages" I immediately thought "shoot
> at the lowest resolution and lowest quality setting (i.e. smallest file
> size). Depending on your exact needs, that may be more than adequate.
> Generally, for Web use, it's better to produce the fastest loading (i.e.
> smallest file size) you can, even if a few JPEG artefacts are visible. If
> these is any chance you will want to do something else with the photos,
> that's different.

If you are going to make adjustments to brightness & contrast there may
be some benefit to shooting higher quality but generally web images are
*vastly* smaller than the smallest image you could get out of any modern
camera. The final use on the web page could make a significant difference.
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 2:14 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay....TakeThisOut@blueyonder.neither-
>> this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Try it with your camera - results may vary - but I found that using
>>> "normal" compression with the highest resolution image size, produced
>>> better results than "fine" compression with the lower resolution,
>>> when viewing images on the computer screen.
>> Thank you David! I did not realize digital cameras provide control
>> over the level of compression applied as well as the resolution.
>
> OK, glad you've learned something.
>
>> I understand your statement that sometimes using higher resolutions
>> with greater compression could produce a clearer "native" result, but
>> assuming a production environment of photos for display in web pages
>> it is usally practical to perform at least some post-processing
>> reduction. Under those circumstances the level of compression applied
>> by the camera seems might be more important than the resolution at
>> which the photos were shot. In other words, I may have asked the
>> wrong question to begin with.
>>
>> For example, my camera (upon further investigation) provides only for
>> what Fuji describes as "Normal" compression at the lowest resolution
>> setting. At the next higher resolution, "Fine" and "Normal" are
>> provided. I'm thinking, as a rule of thumb with any digital camera
>> and knowing in advance that I'll invariably need to perform post-
>> process reduction, I should choose the smallest resolution providing
>> the "Fine" setting for compression (and use that Fine setting).
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rob
>
> Rob,
>
> To be honest, as soon as you said "web pages" I immediately thought "shoot
> at the lowest resolution and lowest quality setting (i.e. smallest file
> size). Depending on your exact needs, that may be more than adequate.
> Generally, for Web use, it's better to produce the fastest loading (i.e.
> smallest file size) you can, even if a few JPEG artefacts are visible. If
> these is any chance you will want to do something else with the photos,
> that's different.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
This is from a less than informed source, but it has always been my
practice to take the pictures at the best resolution the came can put
out, and maintain that in my photo archives. As new technologies come
out, what is now considered high resolution now will be low resolution
in the future.

If you need a lower resolution now you can always save a copy at the
lower resolution using software like Irfanview.


--
Keith Nuttle
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:41:06 -0800 (PST), Rob <robbelljr.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote
in <e4af1acc-f41a-40ad-af9f-81b361ff9d39.DeleteThis@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

>I understand your statement that sometimes using higher resolutions
>with greater compression could produce a clearer "native" result, but
>assuming a production environment of photos for display in web pages
>it is usally practical to perform at least some post-processing
>reduction. Under those circumstances the level of compression applied
>by the camera seems might be more important than the resolution at
>which the photos were shot. In other words, I may have asked the
>wrong question to begin with.

The level of compression and the amount of downsampling are two entirely
different things. The former is best down in post-processing, but the
latter is usually done better in camera, because the camera is working
from the RAW sensor output, not a converted image.

>For example, my camera (upon further investigation) provides only for
>what Fuji describes as "Normal" compression at the lowest resolution
>setting. At the next higher resolution, "Fine" and "Normal" are
>provided. I'm thinking, as a rule of thumb with any digital camera
>and knowing in advance that I'll invariably need to perform post-
>process reduction, I should choose the smallest resolution providing
>the "Fine" setting for compression (and use that Fine setting).
>
>Does that make sense?

Yes.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Rob
<robbelljr.TakeThisOut@aol.com>], who wrote in article <345a1ddf-b28d-435f-a2df-2de012825328.TakeThisOut@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:

To add to what other people say:

> Does a typical digital camera, regardless of user setting for target
> MP, capture all the data required to produce its highest MP image and
> then interpret the result to produce the smaller MP?

Smart cameras have a "limited digital zoom". If you store 5MP of
10MP sensor, it would allow digital zoom of up to 1.4x.

One should also keep in mind that of 10MP dSLR shot, only about 5MP
are "live"; the rest is "dead" - they do not carry any information.
Doing a smart downsampling to 5MP would not use any information.
(With compacts, the ratio goes down to about 40%.)

It is another question whether you trust your camera's software do to
the "smart" downsampling...

Hope this helps,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

In article <fp01nq$1tbg$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, Ilya Zakharevich
<nospam-abuse.RemoveThis@ilyaz.org> wrote:

> One should also keep in mind that of 10MP dSLR shot, only about 5MP
> are "live"; the rest is "dead" - they do not carry any information.
> Doing a smart downsampling to 5MP would not use any information.
> (With compacts, the ratio goes down to about 40%.)

that's absolute nonsense.
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:24:26 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich
<nospam-abuse.DeleteThis@ilyaz.org> wrote in <fp01nq$1tbg$1@agate.berkeley.edu>:

>Smart cameras have a "limited digital zoom". If you store 5MP of
>10MP sensor, it would allow digital zoom of up to 1.4x.

That's cropping, not downsampling.

>One should also keep in mind that of 10MP dSLR shot, only about 5MP
>are "live"; the rest is "dead" - they do not carry any information.
>Doing a smart downsampling to 5MP would not use any information.
>(With compacts, the ratio goes down to about 40%.)

What is that supposed to mean?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
John Navas
<spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com>], who wrote in article <4g37r31epguepvbgphrkiopvj3j54789q2.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>:

> >Smart cameras have a "limited digital zoom". If you store 5MP of
> >10MP sensor, it would allow digital zoom of up to 1.4x.

> That's cropping, not downsampling.

Nope. This is "a digital zoom as god wanted us to have it". It would
use a necessary combination of cropping and downsampling to obtain the
needed zoom ratio. It would never upsample.

> >One should also keep in mind that of 10MP dSLR shot, only about 5MP
> >are "live"; the rest is "dead" - they do not carry any information.
> >Doing a smart downsampling to 5MP would not use any information.
^^^
lose

> What is that supposed to mean?

Is it more clear with the correction above?

Yours,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:00:39 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich
<nospam-abuse.RemoveThis@ilyaz.org> wrote in <fp0ed7$21rj$1@agate.berkeley.edu>:

>[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
>John Navas
><spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com>], who wrote in article <4g37r31epguepvbgphrkiopvj3j54789q2.RemoveThis@4ax.com>:
>
>> >Smart cameras have a "limited digital zoom". If you store 5MP of
>> >10MP sensor, it would allow digital zoom of up to 1.4x.
>
>> That's cropping, not downsampling.
>
>Nope. This is "a digital zoom as god wanted us to have it". It would
>use a necessary combination of cropping and downsampling to obtain the
>needed zoom ratio. It would never upsample.

It's just cropping on all the cameras I've seen that do it. What camera
to you have in mind?

>> >One should also keep in mind that of 10MP dSLR shot, only about 5MP
>> >are "live"; the rest is "dead" - they do not carry any information.
>> >Doing a smart downsampling to 5MP would not use any information.
> ^^^
> lose
>
>> What is that supposed to mean?
>
>Is it more clear with the correction above?

No. There are no "dead" pixels, and information is lost when an image
is downsampled.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting? 

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
John Navas
<spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com>], who wrote in article <0if7r3puj4lpmlm6jtqu8ou193vs5vqquk.RemoveThis@4ax.com>:
> >Nope. This is "a digital zoom as god wanted us to have it". It would
> >use a necessary combination of cropping and downsampling to obtain the
> >needed zoom ratio. It would never upsample.

> It's just cropping on all the cameras I've seen that do it.

On all cameras I saw, choosing a smaller resolution is always
downsampling; never cropping.

When there is a possibility to limit the digital zoom to go only up to
the no-digital-zoom downsampling ratio, it will, again, always produce
the same number of pixels in the image. (I do not remember which
cameras have this feature.)

> >> >One should also keep in mind that of 10MP dSLR shot, only about 5MP
> >> >are "live"; the rest is "dead" - they do not carry any information.
> >> >Doing a smart downsampling to 5MP would not use any information.
> > ^^^
> > lose

> >> What is that supposed to mean?

> >Is it more clear with the correction above?
>
> No. There are no "dead" pixels, and information is lost when an image
> is downsampled.

Sure, my statement of "no information loss" was a tiny bit
overextended. What I meant was "no CONCEIVABLE information loss".

Hope this helps,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: Always shoot at highest megapixel setting?