| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 74307 | 2006-11-17 22:01:00 | Compress/Shrink Photos while Travelling? | Winston001 (3612) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 500126 | 2006-11-18 19:16:00 | Having said that, I hardly ever print a photo these days, let alone 8 x 10 or larger. But you know, one day there will be that special pic......... :confused: When I first got my digcam I bought two packets of photo paper. They still sit in the cupboard, over 100 sheets. I have used only several sheets, a long time ago. We prefer to view our photos on the PC screen or TV-DVD player. I did get The Warehouse Stationary to print two photos onto A3 paper using their colour photocopier, and these photos are on our living room wall. I could have had the local sign graphics shop to print them properly but the photocopies were only a few dollars and they look surprisingly good with absolutely no pixelation. I cannot recall the resolution but my Canon Powershot is only a 3 mp and I did not use the highest setting. Again and again I say this: cameras with big resolutions, say 4, 5 or 6 mp, are mostly a marketing gimmick as 99.9% of users will notice NO DIFFERENCE between a high resolution setting and one taken at 2 or even 1 mp. There is no difference to be seen on a computer screen or TV, or the usual 4 x 6 prints, even 5 x 7. I have asked many people if they ever print photos larger than 5 x 7 and they always say NO. So why waste space on a memory card by taking high reso photos? The exception of course is for those special artistic photos (not snapshots) that just may wind up as a 8 x 10. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 500127 | 2006-11-18 19:19:00 | Forgot to mention "cropping" a photo: whenver I have done this, the limiting factor is the lens resolution, not the number of pixels. Only when I take a low res photo, say 1 mp or less, and crop heavily, is pixelation a problem. | Strommer (42) | ||
| 500128 | 2006-11-18 19:43:00 | Bugger that, The more detail the better (unless in India) | Metla (12) | ||
| 500129 | 2006-11-18 19:53:00 | Normally your digital camera will be able to make a copy of an existing photo at a lower resolution. So you can take all your photos at say 5MP and then make lower resolution, say 1MP, copies on the camera to use for email. Once you have sent them, you can delete the copy and you still have the high res original. :) | maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 500130 | 2006-11-18 20:31:00 | then make lower resolution, say 1MP, copies on the camera to use for email . 150 - 200 Kb for email is all that is needed - on screen there will be no difference . Remember that for those on dialup, especially rural or otherwise slow dialup, 1 mp is painfully huge . |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 500131 | 2006-11-18 20:33:00 | Bugger that, The more detail the better (unless in India) Can we assume personal experience tells you this? |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 500132 | 2006-11-18 21:21:00 | Personal preference (as for india, thats based on the situation put foward in this thread) I would need a hellava good reason to cut detail, As it is I can easily see the difference in picture quality between the two 5mp camera's I have (yes, even on screen) let alone the massive difference between those two and the 4 camera's of lesser mp on hand, including one 1mp camera....... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 500133 | 2006-11-18 21:32:00 | It is said and I haven't done objective test,that for pics on PC pixel count not critical? | Cicero (40) | ||
| 500134 | 2006-11-18 21:58:00 | Well, I wonder if viewing em full size on a projector makes any difference? Anyhow, Like I said I would need a good reason to cut detail, Detail is good.Even if you can't count pixels with the naked eye..... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 500135 | 2006-11-18 22:10:00 | I find my 5 meg jobbie does look better than 1 meg,even on PC,so as usual,you are right,silly me.:rolleyes: | Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||