Best Image Settings

My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?

Thanks!
Scott

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:47:48 -0500, Scott wrote:

My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?

Thanks!
Scott


Why not try it and see which you like best?

Scott wrote:
My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?

Thanks!
Scott

For your applications 7MP is way overkill, but I understand your problem
With the insane MP race that manufacturers are thrusting on the public,
it is hard to find a 2007 model with much less than 6-7MP.
If I were you, I'd shoot at M3 size (1600 x 1200 pixels) and FINE
compression. You will, of course, lose a little image quality but I
think your 4x6 prints and your e-mails will look very good and you and
your mail recipient will be very pleased.

Whenever you come upon that "killer" photo that you know you will print
at 8x10 or larger, just switch over to 3072 x 2304 pixels and Superfine
compression.
Bob Williams

On Oct 14, 12:47 am, Scott wrote:
My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?

Since you are reducing the image size anyway why not shoot at the max
resolution to get the maximum quality? Otherwise, why even bother
with more that a 2MP digital?

On Oct 14, 3:07 am, Bob Williams wrote:

Whenever you come upon that "killer" photo that you know you will print
at 8x10 or larger, just switch over to 3072 x 2304 pixels and Superfine
compression.

Who does that?
Many times you don't know you've captured that killer photo until you
get home. By then it's too late. I say, shoot at the maximum quality
settings all the time. Memory cards are cheap. You paid for the
quality ... use it.

Scott wrote:
My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?

Thanks!
Scott
Rather than lowering the resolution to compensate, I suggest buying a
larger card. My wife's 7.1 mp camera produces files of about 2 meg.,
and I have a 1 GB card in it (under $20). That gives about 500 shots to
fill the card. I only took 470 pictures on a 2 week trip to Seattle,
and 7 day Alaskan cruise. Seems that would be adequate for most users,
and for another $20 ($14 now), I could get another card.

Unless you are one of the lucky people who knows the future, you really
can't be sure what any given shot may be used for in a few years. Best
to have the most information stored as possible.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:47:48 -0500, Scott wrote:

My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?

I would not do that. You can always reduce the size later, but you can't
improve the quality afterward.



Thanks!
Scott

On Oct 14, 2:35 am, Annika1980 wrote:


Who does that?
Many times you don't know you've captured that killer photo until you
get home. By then it's too late. I say, shoot at the maximum quality
settings all the time. Memory cards are cheap. You paid for the
quality ... use it.

I agree. I always shoot at max res, but may change the compression
(quality) setting. Even then, I would rather do that in my computer
than let the camera do it. Big flash cards are very cheap these days.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:01:08 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Scott wrote:
My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?

Thanks!
Scott
Rather than lowering the resolution to compensate, I suggest buying a
larger card. My wife's 7.1 mp camera produces files of about 2 meg.,
and I have a 1 GB card in it (under $20). That gives about 500 shots to
fill the card. I only took 470 pictures on a 2 week trip to Seattle,
and 7 day Alaskan cruise. Seems that would be adequate for most users,
and for another $20 ($14 now), I could get another card.

Unless you are one of the lucky people who knows the future, you really
can't be sure what any given shot may be used for in a few years. Best
to have the most information stored as possible.

Good advice, 2gb cards are on sale for less than $20.
Never know when you might use a little video capturing,
especially with the small SD1000 pocket size camera.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:47 am, Scott wrote:

My wife just bought a 7.1 MP Canon SD1000. She really likes it. Her previous
Canon, a 4 MP, set on the highest resolution and Super Fine yields an image
file size of around 1 MB. The new camera, on the highest setting of 3,072
resolution and "Super Fine" yields an image size averaging 3 MB, which is much
higher. The images are always reduced to 1000 pixels for emailing (about 220K
file size). Also, 4" x 6" prints are often made from these edited images. Very
rarely are imnges blown up to a larger size.

I'm wondering if lowering the resolution from 3072 to 2500 or 2000 and also
changing from "Super Fine" to "Fine" compression to keep the file size down
would noticeably affect the image quality for the way we utilize these images?

Would lowering the resolution and/or lowering the compression...or a combination
of the two, give the best results, as far as optimal image quality?


Since you are reducing the image size anyway why not shoot at the max
resolution to get the maximum quality? Otherwise, why even bother
with more that a 2MP digital?



Sounds like a friend of mine. He shoots his camera at 1MP, because "I
only look at them on my computer and I never print anything out"...
Then gripes because the pictures I take are "too big". :-\

Jim