| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50757 | 2004-10-31 10:53:00 | OT - Pixels on Digital Camera | SKT174 (1319) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 286520 | 2004-11-01 00:30:00 | Thanks for all the info guys. I'm going for a bigger optical zoom 10x with image stablizer rather than a high MP camera with only 3~5x optical zoom with no image stablizer :D | SKT174 (1319) | ||
| 286521 | 2004-11-01 00:37:00 | > If you have a high resolution original you have more > scope for cropping, ie taking a smaller section of > the original and displaying that at full screen size > without it looking blocky. > Yes, I'm thinking of that too... Any major difference between : A photo taken with 10x optical zoom, 1024x768 setting vs A photo taken with 7MP setting with 3x optical zoom and then cropped to the same area as the above photo and rezise that to 1024x768 What I'm trying to say is, people with higher MP camera with low optical zoom can use their highest MP settings and then crop it later, and the results would be the same as with if you had a powerful zoom? |
SKT174 (1319) | ||
| 286522 | 2004-11-01 01:29:00 | I'm wondering SKT, with all the options of mp & opt zoom you are considering, why you are deciding on a 1024 x 768 resolution? You say you will never want to print images. Maybe so, but you'll never know if sometime there will be a special image that you or others may want a print. The 1024 x 768 resolution, although adequate for a monitor display, will be hopeless for printing. Good practice is to use the highest resolution, with least compression to save your images. Good luck. |
Bazza (407) | ||
| 286523 | 2004-11-01 03:09:00 | 2-3mp you be sweet :) its good for the odd printout. maybe to even A4? 2-3mp has a lot more pixels than 1024 768, much more head room, you wont see hand shake. |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||