| 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 | ||
| 286510 | 2004-10-31 10:53:00 | If I don't plan to print out any photos at all, a 7MP camera makes no difference to me than a 3MP camera if I set it to take photos at 1024x768, am I right? | SKT174 (1319) | ||
| 286511 | 2004-10-31 10:56:00 | That's correct. 1 or 2 MP would be even cheeper. |
Rob99 (151) | ||
| 286512 | 2004-10-31 12:10:00 | Sorry .. I should have said .. regardless of what MP settings I'm going to use to take the photo, if I'm not going to print at all, display on my laptop only, I've no advantage of having a 7MP camera vs 3MP, right? Another question is ... if I took a 7MP photo and resized to 1024x768, would that photo be sharper than a 3MP camera using 1024x768 from the start? Or there should be no difference at all ? |
SKT174 (1319) | ||
| 286513 | 2004-10-31 18:37:00 | > Another question is ... if I took a 7MP photo and > resized to 1024x768, would that photo be sharper than > a 3MP camera using 1024x768 from the start? Or there > should be no difference at all ? > It may be "slightly" sharper, but you wouldn't notice a real difference as the pixel count is shrunk down to 1024x768 anyway. It will have more to do with the quality of the sensor rather than the megapixel count in your case. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 286514 | 2004-10-31 19:07:00 | 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. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 286515 | 2004-10-31 22:33:00 | yup .. to the above. you may want a good model older camrea (less MP). i've always wanted one of those panasonic lumix with the leica lenses, esp the one with image stabiliser... they have a 2 or 3 mp.. nikon 990 was really hot that time ago .. | nomad (3693) | ||
| 286516 | 2004-10-31 22:36:00 | Q1 If you are just viewing photos on a screen, the answer is that a 7MP camera is not necessarily better than a 3MP camera. Other factors that make a difference include the quality of the lens, Optical/Digital zoom, Auto focus, processing chip and camera software, etc, etc. Q2. Assuming that the photos from both cameras use the standard JPEG format (and the same level of compression, and similar quality lenses, etc), everytime you save (i.e resize) a JPEG you lose a little 'quality'. So I figure the 1024 x 768 photo taken on the 3MP camera will be 'sharper.' Whether you can tell the difference is another story. HTH |
BachelorNo1 (3913) | ||
| 286517 | 2004-10-31 22:36:00 | with a 3mp i've seen very good A4 printouts. :D i've even heard of a A3 printout thou lots of photoshopping.... ;) think the guy took it inside a studio. |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 286518 | 2004-10-31 22:44:00 | yup yup .. :D go for the quality not the specs. very true. but for general use most pple should not need to worry. they are good enof. one point thou. even if you got the pixel size. and say if you had to use 1:1 ratio display size and throw this on your computer. it would be less sharp, yes because you may see hand shake. higher MP is good that you are not viewing the photo 1:! full size. just open up a image from any digicam or download some samples of a camera you are interested with such as from dpreview.com and open that jpeg and display it fullsize in your photo software. you should see the blur more evidently... |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 286519 | 2004-10-31 22:48:00 | oopsie. don't get the dpreview.com samples as they are shot with a tripod. get a file off your friends camera. this blur will show up more... | nomad (3693) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||