Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?

So with this G11, does it have an awesome sharp clear lens? drool

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
"David J Taylor" wrote :
[]
You do know that "full HD", and your monitor, are only about 2MP, I
presume?

Cheers,
David



Oh my.

Well whatever makes it look so sharp and clear, I want it.

Yes, I sometimes wonder that as well, Jane! One thing is that the pixels
are right on the surface of the display, with no intervening optics, and
there's no "ink spread" which you might get in some printing processes.
Of course, if you want to crop half the linear image you've taken, you
then need four times as many pixels, so having that 8-10-12MP camera does
make some sense....

Oh, and I've seen figures of around 200 pixels per inch for acceptable
photos, and that on a 6 x 4 inch print is 1MP - others say 300 pixels per
inch so that's 2MP.

Cheers,
David

On 2010-06-19 10:04:03 +0100, David J Taylor said:

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
"David J Taylor" wrote :
[]
You do know that "full HD", and your monitor, are only about 2MP, I
presume?

Cheers,
David



Oh my.

Well whatever makes it look so sharp and clear, I want it.

Yes, I sometimes wonder that as well, Jane! One thing is that the
pixels are right on the surface of the display, with no intervening
optics, and there's no "ink spread" which you might get in some
printing processes. Of course, if you want to crop half the linear
image you've taken, you then need four times as many pixels, so having
that 8-10-12MP camera does make some sense....

Oh, and I've seen figures of around 200 pixels per inch for acceptable
photos, and that on a 6 x 4 inch print is 1MP - others say 300 pixels
per inch so that's 2MP.

Yes, good 2 MP cameras produced perfectly acceptable 4x6 inch prints. A
"pixel perfect" 2 MP image produces a large, sharp, and thoroughly
enjoyable image on a good HDTV, sometimes an exquisite image.

Most journals are printed at 200 DPI/PPI therefore a double-page image,
between margins, is about 7 MP. Occasionally, 300 DPI is used for
printing books showing fine art. Some of the top-end printers manage a
stunning 400 DPI.

A 300 DPI print viewed from 10 inches by someone with 20/20 vision is
at the limit of visual acuity: this is termed close scrutiny. For 35 mm
film an 8x10 inch print viewed at 10 inches was the accepted reference.
It had lead to false statement such as: a 12 MP Bayer CFA camera cannot
produce prints larger than 8x12 inches. The correct statement is
approximately: To evaluate the quality of an image, print it at 300 DPI
on a top end printer and assess the print from a distance of 10 inches,
or the equivalent thereof to compensate for vision that is not 20/20.

Generally, children are able to focus on objects 5 inches away or less;
by our mid-forties the closest distance for many of us is 20 inches or
further. At 20 inches viewing distance the print must be 16x24 inches
for close scrutiny, which is 150 DPI, etc. etc. Of course, a 48 inch
HDTV viewed from a distance of about 6 feet gives a razor sharp 2 MP
image. Interestingly, it looks a lot more impressive (and bigger?) than
a 4x6 inch print viewed from 10 inches.

The iPhone 4 has 326 PPI indicating that it is designed for people with
better than 20-20 vision i.e. young people, so no point in me getting
one. A much better excuse than admitting I don't have the ability to
learn how to use it :-)



Jane, as to the low-light aspect, your 2 MP image requirement will
effectively boost the ISO sensitivity of the camera you choose quite
considerably. As I've written too much already I'll leave that for
others to explain if you are interested.

I hope some of this is useful and/or entertaining. Good luck with your
decision.

--
Pete

[]
Generally, children are able to focus on objects 5 inches away or less;
by our mid-forties the closest distance for many of us is 20 inches or
further. At 20 inches viewing distance the print must be 16x24 inches
for close scrutiny, which is 150 DPI, etc. etc. Of course, a 48 inch
HDTV viewed from a distance of about 6 feet gives a razor sharp 2 MP
image. Interestingly, it looks a lot more impressive (and bigger?) than
a 4x6 inch print viewed from 10 inches.

Showing, perhaps, that there's more than angular subtense when evaluating
the subjective quality of images? A good big-un beats an equivalently
good little-un.

The iPhone 4 has 326 PPI indicating that it is designed for people with
better than 20-20 vision i.e. young people, so no point in me getting
one. A much better excuse than admitting I don't have the ability to
learn how to use it :-)
[]
Pete

I was disappointed that when I got my first mobile/text phone about 2.5
years back the instructions were completely lacking in the basics. Even
my current model has no instructions about - for example - how to use its
built-in "camera". Not even an offer to sell me a Nokia for Novices book!
G At least my Panasonic and Nikon instructions manuals include the
basics for beginners.

Cheers,
David

Jane Galt wrote:
So with this G11, does it have an awesome sharp clear lens? drool

Prolly! I bought the G3, several generations earlier, but don't know
first hand how sharp it is. The G3 is still a very useful compact
camera. (4 MP). I now shoot mostly with an 'old' D5.

--
john mcwilliams

On 2010-06-19 16:11:05 +0100, David J Taylor said:

[]
Generally, children are able to focus on objects 5 inches away or less;
by our mid-forties the closest distance for many of us is 20 inches or
further. At 20 inches viewing distance the print must be 16x24 inches
for close scrutiny, which is 150 DPI, etc. etc. Of course, a 48 inch
HDTV viewed from a distance of about 6 feet gives a razor sharp 2 MP
image. Interestingly, it looks a lot more impressive (and bigger?) than
a 4x6 inch print viewed from 10 inches.

Showing, perhaps, that there's more than angular subtense when
evaluating the subjective quality of images? A good big-un beats an
equivalently good little-un.

Thank you, David. I thought you would find the words that I couldn't
muster. That's exactly what I was trying to say. I get bogged down with
attempting to justify my reasoning instead of just telling it like it
is.

The iPhone 4 has 326 PPI indicating that it is designed for people with
better than 20-20 vision i.e. young people, so no point in me getting
one. A much better excuse than admitting I don't have the ability to
learn how to use it :-)
[]
Pete

I was disappointed that when I got my first mobile/text phone about 2.5
years back the instructions were completely lacking in the basics.
Even my current model has no instructions about - for example - how to
use its built-in "camera". Not even an offer to sell me a Nokia for
Novices book! G At least my Panasonic and Nikon instructions manuals
include the basics for beginners.

Cheers,
David

Yes, some companies want us to enjoy their products. Commercially
speaking, they put the effort into making us want to buy from them
again and recommend them to others. The competence of innovative
designers is often stifled by the marketing departments. One version of
the Toyota Supra being sold with totally inappropriate wheels and tyres
is a classic example.

--
Pete

"David J Taylor" wrote :

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
"David J Taylor" wrote :
[]
You do know that "full HD", and your monitor, are only about 2MP, I
presume?

Cheers,
David



Oh my.

Well whatever makes it look so sharp and clear, I want it.

Yes, I sometimes wonder that as well, Jane! One thing is that the pixels
are right on the surface of the display, with no intervening optics, and
there's no "ink spread" which you might get in some printing processes.
Of course, if you want to crop half the linear image you've taken, you
then need four times as many pixels, so having that 8-10-12MP camera does
make some sense....

Oh, and I've seen figures of around 200 pixels per inch for acceptable
photos, and that on a 6 x 4 inch print is 1MP - others say 300 pixels per
inch so that's 2MP.

Cheers,
David

I havent had prints made in years.



--
- Jane Galt

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Jane Galt" wrote in message
Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a
polarizing
lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of
stuff in
there, including the XD-45 ACP,
Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)
Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman.

Really? What makes you think that?

The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong" recently,
was a guy.

Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you
first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from the
guy whoever he was.

Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe you're
right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I guess.
I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-)

I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's male,
or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.

What is it about Jane Galt (or "Jane Galt") that makes you suspect the same
thing, though? I'd agree the name is odd, looking like perhaps a variation
on the John Galt of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," but that in itself
doesn't mean the gender is faked.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Jane Galt" wrote in message
Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a
polarizing
lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of
stuff in
there, including the XD-45 ACP,
Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)
Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman.

Really? What makes you think that?

The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong" recently,
was a guy.

Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you
first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from the
guy whoever he was.

Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe you're
right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I guess.
I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-)

I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's male,
or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.

What is it about Jane Galt (or "Jane Galt") that makes you suspect the same
thing, though? I'd agree the name is odd, looking like perhaps a variation
on the John Galt of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," but that in itself
doesn't mean the gender is faked.


You basement-life city-boy "males" are so out of touch with reality. While
staying at a hunter's-camp in the Everglades for a whole winter I met up
with a gal from Miami that wanted to come and have a place to practice
firing her .50 caliber handgun. Rounds are pricey so we recovered as many
shells as we could for reloading.

ron_tom wrote :

You basement-life city-boy "males" are so out of touch with reality.
While staying at a hunter's-camp in the Everglades for a whole winter I
met up with a gal from Miami that wanted to come and have a place to
practice firing her .50 caliber handgun. Rounds are pricey so we
recovered as many shells as we could for reloading.

Indeed. If only I could afford it, I'd be doing that with a .50 BMG rifle at
the annual Colorado Machine Gun shoot here.

http://www.rmfcsa.org/gallery/displa...500&fullsize=1

Oh look! Are those women attending? Quick! Turn them over and check to be
sure! LOL




--
- Jane Galt