If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6 most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30. I do crop my images often, but not by much. In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture quality and picture resolution are not related.) Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something? If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported, please tell me why do you do that. Thank you for sharing your opinions. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
On May 25, 8:40 am, wrote:
I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6 most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30. I do crop my images often, but not by much. In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture quality and picture resolution are not related.) Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something? If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported, please tell me why do you do that. Thank you for sharing your opinions. But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot with that I did not intend when I originally made the shot. Memory cards are coming down so much in price that this shouldn't be too much of a problem. I set cameras for highest res and lowest step of compression (HQ on most cameras). I use RAW only for stuff I know I will do a lot with. High res and moderate JPEG still results in a reasonable size file, but with not-that-bad a loss of information. Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images, only color purity. Loss of resolution in my mind is a glaring factor in image quality. As long as you use JPEG only for the initial storage, and not for the file type while processing, you do not lose all that much. While you are working on a file, store it in the native format for your image processor (PSD, PSP, etc.). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
On May 25, 8:55 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote: Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images, only color purity. While I agree with the first part, I can't agree that jpeg compression only reduces color purity. Jpeg compression introduces image artifacts as well, some of which I find more offensive than loss of color depth/fidelity. Austin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the
matter at hand: I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6 most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30. I do crop my images often, but not by much. In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture quality and picture resolution are not related.) Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something? If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported, please tell me why do you do that. Thank you for sharing your opinions. What IS your primary usage for the images you create, slide shows on your PC monitor, E-mail to friends and relatives, web hosting, what? Like you, I seldom print my car pictures and I find that Windows does a really crappy job of pixel resizing down, so for my 21" LCD monitor running at 1280 x 960, I usually save my images at 1400 x 1050 to allow for a reasonable print if I need it later, sometimes 1600 x 1200. Also, you didn't say what camera you have or the subject(s) and lighting conditions you shoot, not to mention any hints on your definition of a VERY subjective term, "quality". Given that your camera is capable of quality images overall, your technique is good, etc. most people would say that 200 PPI is the minimum for a "good" print, and I would generally agree, but at the sizes I save at to avoid the images being destroyed by Windows, I'm only at 120, maybe 150 PPI at 8.5 x 11. You mention that you want to conserve memory card space, but it is getting cheaper all the time. To avoid any camera-induced JPEG compression artefacts, I choose the higher quality, read: less compression, setting on my Rebel XT and usually shoot at the middle 5 mega pixel size. Why do you say that picture quality and picture resolution are not related? There are many other factors of course, but both displayed and printed images generally look better at higher resolutions, subject to the limitations I describe above. As to cropping, if I possibly can, I will compose to allow for 20% excess foreground, sideground, and background than I will end up with because it allows me to crop for best resolution during post-processing and not have to make the complete decision when shooting. Naturally, it helps to compose roughly for the effect you want ... Let's say you're shooting at 2500 x 1660, the 4 MP size of my Canon Rebel XT, and I allow for 20% all the way around my main subject. That still leaves me at around 2000 x 1300, still well about my final image size. It has been awhile since I bought my last CF card, but I'd guess that a 1 gig card is under $80, my images are about 2 MB, so that gives me some 500 images, which is normally plenty. But, I do alter my settings in the field under two situations: if there is a small sign or owner's card I want to capture for later reference, I'll go down to the smallest size, but if I want an effective increase in focal length at my max telephoto, I'll go to 8 MP, the idea being that I can crop a decent size chunk out of the middle and gain an effective 2X tele range. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
Don Stauffer in Minnesota offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand: But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot with that I did not intend when I originally made the shot. Memory cards are coming down so much in price that this shouldn't be too much of a problem. I set cameras for highest res and lowest step of compression (HQ on most cameras). I use RAW only for stuff I know I will do a lot with. High res and moderate JPEG still results in a reasonable size file, but with not-that-bad a loss of information. Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images, only color purity. Loss of resolution in my mind is a glaring factor in image quality. As long as you use JPEG only for the initial storage, and not for the file type while processing, you do not lose all that much. While you are working on a file, store it in the native format for your image processor (PSD, PSP, etc.). The OP was pretty vague, but I might suspect their camera is at the lower price end, so maybe the cost of a big memory card is important, but I fully agree with you. If I go to an all-day car show where there may be 300+ cars sitting there, I'll take all 2.5 gig worth of CF cards with me and a 2nd battery. Also, I put a longer zoom lens and my external flash in the car out-of-sight if I see something that requires either. e.g., some car shows are combinations of outdoors and indoors, sometimes a car I'm shooting is in really deep shade, you get the idea. I don't have the time available to process hundreds of images in RAW, so I just choose the higher quality, i.e., lower compression setting on my Rebel XT. I experimented with my previous EVF, a Nikon 5700 that died, and discovered that it's "normal" vs. "fine" quality setting produced visible JPEG artefacts maybe 10- 15% of the time, sometime more under certain conditions. I ran a few quick tests when I first bought my Rebel and found about the same. So, since I cannot predict which images are most likely to introduce compression artefacts, I agree with your analysis: memory is just too cheap to risk blowing some really nice shots to save a few MB. BTW, do you use any kind of auxilliary storage device to off-load your memory cards in the field? I tried an Epson something or other that had a 40 gig HD and all kinds of supposedly neat features for this purpose, but it was SO slow at uploading or previewing the images on its large LCD, I returned it. And, do you ever run into a situation where you run out of battery and there's no place to recharge? Two batteries will get me thousands of images, so I'm OK locally, but I think if I were traveling out-of-state, I'd buy one of those $50 D.C.-to-A.C. inverters and charge a battery while I'm eating dinner or driving someplace else. You comment that you've seen JPEG do something you don't like to color purity. Since I don't use RAW and a Rebel can't save to TIFF, I don't know if I do or don't have "good" purity, nor do I even know what that means! grin Could you explain, please? Finally, as to the usual argument that JPEG destroys images, I've not seen that except if I find myself in some unusual situation where I MUST save, re-edit and re-save again later, and maybe do one more cycle after that. That's a sure way to introduce damage. For the rare cases that I want to totally re-edit, e.g., I decide I want to print really large but what I'd previously done is far too few PPI, I just start over with the camera JPEG(s), which I store in a sub-folder under where my finished images are stored on my HD. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
David J Taylor offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand: If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported, please tell me why do you do that. Always. By tests, I have found that a full resolution, lower JPEG quality image provides better results that a lower resolution, higher quality JPEG image when, for example, you reduce to a lower resolution for the Web and (I suspect) when printing. Try it and see if you can see the difference - your camera may produce different results to mine. Huh? Ya lost me, David! There's no need to re-debate what people think their "best" or "optimal" pixel resolution is and I understand why you save at max, but I don't understand why you accept the risk of getting home and discovering image(s) with JPEG compression artefacts that make getting a truly quality final image and/or a quality print impossible, more than the loss of PPI. I'm not arguing, just asking. Several people have made statements today that I simply don't understand, and I'd like to learn, not dispute. Thanks. The cost of memory is now so low that it shouldn't enter the equation unless, perhaps, you were on a three week trip with no backup storage. I agree. I just asked another replier if they have an aux storage device for long trips, do you? Or, do you just go someplace that will burn you a CD or DVD, you reformat your memory, and continue? If the OP has a $150 P & S that maybe is a 6 MP, they may not want to invest almost the price of the camera for a gig or 2 of memory. But, if I had that kind of camera, I'd likely long ago done some controlled testing to see if the higher MP ranges do or do not really produce superior images. e.g., both my wife's and daughter's Kodak P & S's have a "quality" setting, but all it is doing is changing the MP; I've tested my theory that these cameras cannot produce enough quality to go beyond 2 MP, and barely that, because they save at a JPEG=20+ on the 1-100 scale and artefacts are easily visible. The thought that has crossed my mind many times in these debates this week about how many PPI you need et al is the old saw "all other factors being equal, but they seldom are." People want to form an absolute opinion and rigidly conform to it wrt mega pixels without doing any controlled testing at all or giving any thought to subject type, lighting conditions, etc. And, as you and I have debated a bit, lots of folks today do little or no post-processing, and I'd bet that them that do aren't very skilled at it, which further negates the absolute advantage of a higher resolution image. And, one more time, I believe strongly in fitness of purpose being the main criteria, AFTER you've gotten opinions from others and read the lab tests. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
Gisle Hannemyr offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand: You may be missing some quality in low-light. When there a significant amounts of noise present in your picture, you can improve the signal to noise ratio visibly by combining the values of adjacent pixels on the expense of resolution. Also, if your camera has a weak AA-filter, aliasing artifacts can be removed by oversampling (e.g. capturing at high resolution) and then downsampling in software. Here's yet another opinion I simply do not understand. That I'm aware of, there is no user-controllable setting for AA on my Rebel XT, but there is for contrast, sharpness, and saturation. I really don't know if it does or does not have a "strong" AA filter, although at least I understand anti-aliasing. That said, old-fashioned AA REALLY reduces actual sharpness and detail with all of those off-colored pixels designed to fool the human eye into thinking there's less jaggies. As to your comment about oversampling, in general I would agree, but it isn't quite that simple to me in practice. What I mean is, let's say for discussion I shoot at 8 MP but decide to save finished images at 2. My testing has shown that a resample down that large can destroy a good image, introduce artefacts, aliasing by itself, sometimes even posterization and other undesireable effects. There are mathematical theories and plenty of proponents for resampling down in 2, 3, or maybe 4 steps, with mild smoothing of obvious aliasing and mild sharpening between downsize steps. But trying to put the theory into practice at my level of understanding has proven elusive. But these are rather special conditions. In general, provided that you never need to print larger than 6.67 x 10 in (6 Mpx at 300 ppi), 6 Mpx is all the resolution you need. I have never been able to achieve total "system" quality in images I process that will support 300 PPI, so I gave up trying long ago. And, although we debated this for days, choice of subject(s) you shoot and each person's definition of "quality", which almost always is subjective, I find that for the low percent I actually print, 120-150 PPI satisfies my requirements. I am NOT saying I get super prints at that PPI, I CAN see the aliasing, but at normal viewing distances for a borderless 8.5 x 11, it isn't nearly bad enough to bother me. If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported, please tell me why do you do that. I shoot everything as RAW. Reducing the resolution is simply not an option if you shoot RAW. True. I'll bet, though, when the OP comes back and tells us more about their camera and what they're trying to do, they may not be even capable of shooting in RAW, and almost certainly not skilled in how to use it. I do not know how myself because I know that my standards for image quality don't require it and I just don't have the time to devote to really doing RAW well. But even if I had the option (as JPEG shooters have), I wold have used highest resolution and best quality. Memory cards are very cheap these days, so always carry a couple of spare cards. I really see no point of not having max quality available for a mural print, just to save the minor inconvenience of carrying extra cards. If one has a $1000+ DSLR body and several thousand dollars invested in good glass and maybe a decent external flash, then ou are entirely correct. I have 2.5 gig right now, which is more than enough for a day's shooting, but then, I don't shoot RAW. But, if one only has $100, $150, maybe $250 invested in the camera, they may view $80 for a gig memory card to be excessing. The problem with these open-ended "what's your opinion?" OPs is that not nearly enough information is provided for repliers to give an intelligent answer. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
AustinMN offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of
the matter at hand: Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images, only color purity. While I agree with the first part, I can't agree that jpeg compression only reduces color purity. Jpeg compression introduces image artifacts as well, some of which I find more offensive than loss of color depth/fidelity. At the "fine" setting on my Rebel XT, whether I shoot at 2, 4 or 8 MP, I have NEVER seen a single traditional JPEG compression artefact. Now, if I choose the lower quality, then, yes, I see artefacts in enough images that I don't want to risk ruining an otherwise good photo. If we can agree that JPEG is really a unitless 1-100 scale and not a percentage, then I do not at all agree with some who say that JPEG=15 or higher is OK. I seldom go over 10, and sometimes get as low as 6. Since I cannot see JPEG damage while the image is in memory, I always reopen just-saved files to check for it, and reduce compression and/or alter my favorite 4 of the available Chroma subsampling choices in PSP 9. As to color depth/fidelity, I understand the term, but have no knowledge of how to know if I am or am not losing it. But, for me, it is an academic question since I don't shoot RAW ... -- HP, aka Jerry |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Do you set your camera at high resolution?
HEMI-Powered wrote:
[] Huh? Ya lost me, David! There's no need to re-debate what people think their "best" or "optimal" pixel resolution is and I understand why you save at max, but I don't understand why you accept the risk of getting home and discovering image(s) with JPEG compression artefacts that make getting a truly quality final image and/or a quality print impossible, more than the loss of PPI. I'm not arguing, just asking. Several people have made statements today that I simply don't understand, and I'd like to learn, not dispute. Thanks. As I suggested, when you get a new camera you may try out the different JPEG compressions to see which works to an acceptable standard for your own work. Although it depends on camera type and model, I have found that using the highest available resolution, with a "medium" JPEG quality can actually produce better visible results (on the screen or print) than using a lower resolution setting but with a higher JPEG save quality. Were I to discover such poor quality images as you mention, I would revise the save JPEG quality setting I use in the camera. I agree. I just asked another replier if they have an aux storage device for long trips, do you? Or, do you just go someplace that will burn you a CD or DVD, you reformat your memory, and continue? I would normally try and take enough card memory for a trip. We also have an Epson P2000 was can use if necessary. If the OP has a $150 P & S that maybe is a 6 MP, they may not want to invest almost the price of the camera for a gig or 2 of memory. But, if I had that kind of camera, I'd likely long ago done some controlled testing to see if the higher MP ranges do or do not really produce superior images. e.g., both my wife's and daughter's Kodak P & S's have a "quality" setting, but all it is doing is changing the MP; I've tested my theory that these cameras cannot produce enough quality to go beyond 2 MP, and barely that, because they save at a JPEG=20+ on the 1-100 scale and artefacts are easily visible. With 2GB SD cards at about US $15 over here, I would hope that even the $150 cameraman would buy enough memory! The thought that has crossed my mind many times in these debates this week about how many PPI you need et al is the old saw "all other factors being equal, but they seldom are." People want to form an absolute opinion and rigidly conform to it wrt mega pixels without doing any controlled testing at all or giving any thought to subject type, lighting conditions, etc. And, as you and I have debated a bit, lots of folks today do little or no post-processing, and I'd bet that them that do aren't very skilled at it, which further negates the absolute advantage of a higher resolution image. And, one more time, I believe strongly in fitness of purpose being the main criteria, AFTER you've gotten opinions from others and read the lab tests. The difficulty, though, for your "$150 cameraman", is likely to be understanding all the various factors involved. More likely, he will ask you or me "What settings should I use?", and of course the answer can take as long or as little time as you have to bother with the particular person! G Cheers, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digital camera image to high resolution photo video? | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 4 | February 17th 07 02:17 AM |
High resolution photos from a digital camera. | Scott W | Digital Photography | 77 | November 17th 05 03:26 PM |
High resolution photos from a digital camera. | Scott W | 35mm Photo Equipment | 78 | November 17th 05 03:26 PM |
High resolution film | Frank Pittel | Large Format Photography Equipment | 45 | January 27th 05 02:52 AM |
High quality high resolution images. Please see my new website! | Keith Flowers | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 13th 03 12:13 PM |