posted
I'm tossing this question out because I honestly don't know the answer and would love to get some perspective on this.
For the purpose of web publishing only - not for print but just for web; how much resolution is enough? Two megapixels? Five megapixels? Here's part of why I'm wondering on this:
A girl goes on a picnic. Comes back, tells me "you should see this great place I found, we had the best time". She sends me a link to a photo-blog page and another to her Ofoto online album from the picnic. The photos were good. Clear, sharp and very good. Great "people" shots, VERY nice macro shots of flowers, bees, etc. and more (yes, feet shots as well).
Next time I see her she shows her camera to me and I'm shocked to learn it is a Samsung Digimax; a 2.3 MP digital camera from about three years ago. This was astounding to me, I didn't realize you could get as much as she did out of 2.3MP digital camera.
So my question is this: How much resolution do you need to make great web photos? After that, how much is better? How much is enough? And - how much is too much?
What does everybody else use in here?
[ August 15, 2005, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Ben Del Amitri ]
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right! To avoid all technical jargon, which I m aure everybody reading this post will fall asleep, I can tell you that it depends on what you want. I ll set examples, which are way too easy to understand. So, you want to take a photo and then print it in a poster like frame to hang it on your wall.. Then you need max resolution and max Megapixels at the same time to be sure that every detail is there. Another: you have captured a great site seeing moment (e.g. a lake, tress, a sandy beach) and you want to print it out and to put it on your living room .. same thing... as maximum a resolution you can take from you cam and fine quality. Of course it depends on the camera how much Megapixels it can give you. So, for these two instances a 5.0 + and over Megapixel camera is doing the job.
Let's go further down. Supposedly you only wanna print photos for your album ... to a printing size of 10x15 cm then max resolution from your camera (normally above 1024x768 will do fine) .. you ll have crystal clear and sharpened photos and therefore there is no need to worry about your Megapixels. Even a 2.3 Megapixel with max resolution in printing size of 1600x1200 pp will do just fine!
As for the web photos.. it depends on what you want.. on what you are going to use it for... If it's gonna be for banner or thumbnail or just for posting .. a resolution of 1024x768 will seem to be great!
You see the funny thing is that resolution (width and height of the photo that is) plays a more important role than Megapixels aka dpi (dots per inch) in printing environment. Therefore, it depends on what you are going to use it for.
The photos that this girl sent you seemed to be fine along along with a 2.3 MP because probably the resolution was enough!
Oh did I forget the monitor factor???? OH yes... monitors like the ones we all have "consumes" every little detail possible for our viewing pleasure. So, a medium quality photo might not have big difference with a fine quality photo... BUT when it comes to print out... zboing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... you ve been framed! Read em and weep! You know what I mean .. You d see both photos printed out and you will realise which is the better than the other!
Mr Ben, there are some fine articles about resolution, filesize, Megapixels and the rest. If you google just the word "resolution" I m sure you ll be busy reading stuff for another 10 days!
Keep it up ! Stay tuned.. and as always .. FEEL FREE to ask some more!
I aim to please
As to what I am using... mainly I stick with max resolution .. and super fine qualty when I know that the photo I am about to shoot will be printed ... When there is only a matter of just shooting it ... I stick with medium parametres.. there is no need for more than that... only memory card consumption
Your points on prints are well-taken. For web only though, I've been surprised at just how little you can get away with.
Some of the web images this girl posted were almost full-screen size on a monitor set with 800 X 600 resolution (suitable for wallpaper), and they were CLEAR. Really nice.
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes indeed .. the smaller the monitor resolution the more details you get but you dont see any negative points. The further up you go on monitor resolution e.g 1024x768 .. you d be able to see any faults or pixelates. I think 800x600 and 1024x768 for web images are more than enough There is no need to go beyond this point. Again, for web images only... not for any printing jobs you might want to do.
posted
The number of pixels you need depends on the use you are making of your pictures. If you are happy to view them on a computer screen (or TV) or simply want them for your web site, you need many fewer than if you want to make even small prints (such as 4x6" enprints.) If you want larger prints you will need yet more pixels to get smooth looking results.
Usage Typical image dimensions Image size Web site 450x350 pixels 0.05 - 0.25 Mp Onscreen viewing 800x600 pixels 0.5-1.5 Mp Enprint 1800x1200 pixels 1.5-2.5 Mp 10x8 enlargement 2500x2000 pixels 4-5 Mp 16x12 enlargement 3200x2400 pixels 6Mp or more
---------------------------------------------- Got that from about.com So by their info a 2-3MP camera should suffice for strictly the web. Remember though you can always resize smaller but you can never go the other way.
Posts: 93 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a great template guide for general knowlege and purposes!
It just astounded the heck out of me though, how much this girl got out of that 2MP Samsung camera. Turns out she paid about $125.00 for it off of ebay and that was a year and a half ago.
Sometimes I tend to go for the greatest possible spec on things but situations like this put a little bit of perspective on them for me.
[ August 15, 2005, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Ben Del Amitri ]
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes that's true. You can get a really expensive kind of gadgetry with lots of pros, effects, and gimmicks than to find out that with less money and same characteristics you can get it to suit your needs. I learnt it ever since I bought my first standalone DVD-player (Thompson DTH-5000) in 2000 with a price of 850 Euros (approx. 780 US$) than to find out some 6 months later that I could find another DVD model with no more than 100-200 Euros. Oh well, no harm done ... but quality and lens lazer seems to be the same for all these players.
Based on your advice, I visited the ACDSee site. They've got a lot of products over there and I'm interested in their video software as well as the Fotoslate.
Also I saw where they were up to version 7 of the ACDSee software itself and it looks pretty good. Thanks for the advice on this product.
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
That Cybershot is GREAT!!!!! It is really a great camera and I even like the way it's shaped & the way it feels in the hand.
One of our footgirls bought that model and she's gotten some fantastic results. I've got a Cybershot DSC-V1 and V3 and that H1 has the same major advantages:
- Carl Zeiss optics and they are SHARP - Focusing in the dark (OUTSTANDING and it works every time!) - Super HAD CCD, which gives you very fast recovery and reboot time
You also mentioned Digimax and from what I've seen, those cameras are excellent and very under-rated. In fact, the camera that brought all this up in my mind was a Digimax (2.3MP).
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've seen a lot of great material come out of 2MP cameras. I've even seen a few sterling 8X10 prints from a few of them. It's all you really need to capture great web photos, photos for email and (of course) feet photos!
-------------------- Respectfully,
Ben
Malory in Signature Posts: 5772 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You know what I mean .. You d see both photos printed out and you will realise which is the better than the other!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
, but don't worry about me. i have a 2.0mp, and im happy with it
