 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / Photos / March 2005digital camera pix size
I am having a debate with someone over which is best. Buy a digital camera with as much megapixal as possible or not. I say there is a limit for most home users and most home printers that more is not always better. You will not get any better picture with a 3meg vs a 6meg digital camera for most purposes for home use, like 4x6, 5x7 or web pictures etc. Unless you want full page ad type photo then you need more pixal. Am I correct? Can I get some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? Thanks I agree with you. I'm thinking most home users print mostly 4x6s a few 5x7s and an occasional 8x10. In my non-professional opinion...anything larger than 3MP to 4MP for this purpose is not necessary. There are sample images from many different cameras at the following website. I would suggest that you download a few and experiment with them. http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html  SignatureJohn Inzer MS Picture It! MVP >I am having a debate with someone over which is best. Buy a digital camera > with as much megapixal as possible or not. I say there is a limit for most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? > Thanks You can never be too rich. You can never be too thin. Your hard drive can never be big enough You can never have too many megapixels. The first two came from my grandmother, if she had lived long enough she would have added the next two!~ Have fun arguing with your friend! Sure, 3 MP is plenty to print 4x6 5x7 and even 8x 10. But then, if you want a portion of the picture, you crop it. Now what? The more megapixels you have, the better to print. > I am having a debate with someone over which is best. Buy a digital camera > with as much megapixal as possible or not. I say there is a limit for most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? > Thanks Humm........So if you crop out a section you are reducing the pixel size also? I thought that what ever part you crop out will still remain the same quality. Am I getting this wrong? > You can never be too rich. > You can never be too thin. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? > > Thanks It will be the same quality but smaller. If you then print it at the same size as non cropped it will be lower quality. Signature---------------------------------------------------------- > Humm........So if you crop out a section you are reducing the pixel size > also? I thought that what ever part you crop out will still remain the same [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? >> > Thanks I think I understand now, I have a Canon A70 have it set at the highest res. I take a picture, will come out great at say 8x10 if I crop out and save 1/4 of it then I have to reduce my picture size by about 3/4 or is it not that much of a ratio. Thanks for the help and info. > It will be the same quality but smaller. If you then print it at the same size as non cropped it will be lower quality. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >> > some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? > >> > Thanks I agree... and if you use PhotoStory and zoom into a picture, you need the pixels to retain the sharpness throughout the process.. So pixels are needed for things beyond printing.... SignaturePapaJohn Movie Maker 2 and Photo Story 3 - www.papajohn.org Photo Story 2 - www.photostory.papajohn.org . > You can never be too rich. > You can never be too thin. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? >> Thanks Thanks for the input. "PapaJohn (MVP)" wrote: > I agree... and if you use PhotoStory and zoom into a picture, you need the > pixels to retain the sharpness throughout the process.. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >> some facts. Should I post this elsewhere? > >> Thanks surely if you cut a portion of a pic, and you wish to expand that portion, the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? Absolutely correct. If you have a 3 MP file and you print 8 x 10 you will get a decent print. Now, crop and keep half the original area of the picture. Try printing. Poor results. The addition from PapaJohn is also absolutely correct. When using Photo Story 3, zooming in on a picture is the same as cropping. The more megapixels you have the more zooming you can do, otherwise the quality will be poor just like when printing. > surely if you cut a portion of a pic, and you wish to expand that portion, > the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? Thanks everyone for the help. By the way John my Digital Suite package is in the mail. (Picture It Premium post) > Absolutely correct. > If you have a 3 MP file and you print 8 x 10 you will get a decent print. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > surely if you cut a portion of a pic, and you wish to expand that portion, > > the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? Let us know if you think the upgrade was worth it. SignatureJohn Inzer MS Picture It! MVP > Thanks everyone for the help. By the way John my Digital Suite package is > in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > portion, >> > the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? Will do, by the way, Picture It Premium does not have the flip book in it. Unless it is called something else, but I couldn't find any type of animator in the program. > Let us know if you think the > upgrade was worth it. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >> > portion, > >> > the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? Thanks for the info about Flipbook, I only have the DIP10 version so I am uncertain as to exactly which features are in the Premium version. In DIP10 you'll find it at: Tools / Flipbook. SignatureJohn Inzer MS Picture It! MVP > Will do, by the way, Picture It Premium does not have the flip book in it. > Unless it is called something else, but I couldn't find any type of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> > portion, >> >> > the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? I have both a 3.1 Mp Kodak and an 8.1Mp.Oly There is an obvious difference in resolution. Having said that, there are times when the faster cycle times of the 3.1 Mp camera are much appreciated. It is also true that the 8.1 is quite fast and maybe faster than the 3.1 when set to something other than "RAW" format. If I know serious cropping is going to be necessary, The 8.1 Mp is the obvious choice. > Thanks for the info about Flipbook, I only > have the DIP10 version so I am uncertain [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>> >> > portion, >>> >> > the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? Thanks for the input and info. > I have both a 3.1 Mp Kodak and an 8.1Mp.Oly > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >>> >> > portion, > >>> >> > the more pixies you have the better the enlargement? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.