Can anyone explain size vs. resolution to me??? [Archive]

js415

02-28-2004, 04:59 PM

Maybe this is a real stupid question, or maybe it not an easy one to answer, bit I'm giving it a shot anyway.

I have a very old Olympus D-460 Zoom digital camera that I use for just basic outdoor Photography. Nothing fancy, just shots of our family messing around. It is a 1.3 MP camera. It has 3 settings for picture quality, Super Quality(640X480), High Quality(1280X960), and Super High Quality(1280X960).

Since I have had the camera, I have had it set on Super Quality(640X480) for all my pictures.

My dad just bought a Minolta Dimage Z-1, and his camera will let him change the picture size independant of the quality size. He can change to any size picture 640X480, 1280X960, or even larger, and for each of these sizes, he can pick the quality of the picture, which I now "assume" (Uh-Oh!!) affects the size of the picture.

What I need/want to know is this...Regardless of what settings I am using, am I always using the full 1.3MP of my camera, or only getting the the full 1.3MP at the higher settings?

Is it common to have the resolution tied to the quality of the picture??

Is my camera so old that it is outdated and not letting my get the best pictures I could?

Most importantly, am I asking questions that can not be answered simply, which I suspect is the case???

Any advice, suggestions, help, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Jerry

Jason Dunn

02-28-2004, 06:15 PM

Jerry,

Great question! This is something we can unpack someday on the front page, but for now I'll give you some brief answers.

There are two ways that digital cameras control the picture quality: resolution (640 x 480, 1024 x 768) and JPEG compression settings (usually referred to on the camera as Image Quality). The higher the resolution, the more total pixels you have, which means more detail, and bigger prints are possible. In general, higher resolution = higher quality. Your 1.3 MP camera is only being used in 1.3 MP mode when you have the resolution set at the highest possible setting. It's simple math: 1280 x 960 = 1,228,800 pixels, which they round up to 1.3 million pixels, or 1.3 megapixels. So when you're shooting in 640 x 480 mode, you're shooting in 0.3 megapixel mode (640 x 480 = 307,200).

Now, when it comes to the actual image quality settings, this is just JPEG compression. The more you compress a JPEG image, the smaller it gets, but image quality suffers correspondingly. It's not always visible to the naked eye, but when you do prints you may see digital artifacts (blockiness around edges, skin tones look blotchy, etc.).

The simple rule of thumb is this: the less pictures you can fit on a memory card, the higher the image quality settings are set at. ;-) So if you want to get the maximum quality your camera can do, push the resolution as high as it will go, and set the image quality as high as possible.

I hope this helped!

Gary Sheynkman

02-28-2004, 06:50 PM

What I need/want to know is this...Regardless of what settings I am using, am I always using the full 1.3MP of my camera, or only getting the the full 1.3MP at the higher settings?

Is it common to have the resolution tied to the quality of the picture??

Is my camera so old that it is outdated and not letting my get the best pictures I could?

Most importantly, am I asking questions that can not be answered simply, which I suspect is the case???

First of all, there is no such thing as a stupid question, not all of us spend our lives on the internet :lol:

1)For maximum quality you always want to set the quality of the picture to the maximum your camera allows. The other modes are there to conserve space (or if yoyu are going to use the pics only online)
2)In consumer cameras that is often the case, more resolution=sharper image. After 4-5 megapixels though, quality will asociated with not only the chip, but the lens and abdundance of manual features as well
3)How to put this mildly: you camera is archaic...even for regular 4*6 pictures. Sorry to tell you that, but its true. You could improve your pictures ALOT with a nice 3mp camera...not even talking about going higher. If you want advice on a new camera, tel us the price range and features you would prefer (point and shoot..vs. having the option to tinker a bit)
4)All questions can be answered simply. If a certain "yslee" gives you a difficult answer :lol: , I'd be glad to translate his complex explanation into English for ya :wink:

If you have any more questions, feel free to post, I check this board about every 30 seconds

js415

02-28-2004, 07:39 PM

The simple rule of thumb is this: the less pictures you can fit on a memory card, the higher the image quality settings are set at. ;-) So if you want to get the maximum quality your camera can do, push the resolution as high as it will go, and set the image quality as high as possible.

I hope this helped![/quote]

OK, let me walk through this and make sure I understand.

Resolution and image size are the same thing??

If that is so, and if I should set my camera to the maximum resolution to get the full 1.3MP, I have no choice but to also have the quality set as high as it will go, because, in my case, the two are tied together, within the camera settings.

In the case of my dads newer camera, he can set his resolution (size) to the highest, taking advantage of the higher resolution, but also use a lower quality, to save space, if needed.

Is this correct??

And if so, it sounds like I should be shopping for a new camera, to take advantage of the quality they have to offer.

Thanks,

Jerry

js415

02-28-2004, 07:43 PM

[quote="Gary Sheynkman"][quote="js415"]

3)How to put this mildly: you camera is archaic...even for regular 4*6 pictures. Sorry to tell you that, but its true. You could improve your pictures ALOT with a nice 3mp camera...not even talking about going higher. If you want advice on a new camera, tel us the price range and features you would prefer (point and shoot..vs. having the option to tinker a bit)

OUCH!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I'm a big boy, and sort of knew this was the answer already!!

So, if I'm want to buy a new camera, and spend less than $500.00 what would be a good choice.

How about less than $300.00.

Forgeting money, what are the things, in order of importance, that I should look for, and then wiegh those against the cost of a new unit, before purchasing??

Thanks for all the help.

Jerry

Jason Dunn

02-28-2004, 07:47 PM

Resolution and image size are the same thing?? If that is so, and if I should set my camera to the maximum resolution to get the full 1.3MP, I have no choice but to also have the quality set as high as it will go, because, in my case, the two are tied together, within the camera settings.

Yes, that's correct. "Resolution" is a confusing word, because it means different things in different settings (on screen and when it comes to printing), but in your case it's best to think of resolution as quality. The higher the resolution, the higher the quality. "Size" is a tricky term, so all you need to remember is that the higher the resolution, the more pixels there are - and the more pixels there are, the bigger the image is and the more detail it has.

In the case of my dads newer camera, he can set his resolution (size) to the highest, taking advantage of the higher resolution, but also use a lower quality, to save space, if needed. Is this correct??

Correct - your dad is getting the highest resolution possible, but compressing the images to save space. This isn't a bad thing, but he may not like the results if he prints them - it depends on the camera, the image, and the eyes of the viewer. Some people don't notice digital artifacts, others (like me) are hyper-sensitive to them. ;-)

And if so, it sounds like I should be shopping for a new camera, to take advantage of the quality they have to offer.

Absolutely. As Gary pointed out, even a modern entry level 3 megapixel camera will give you pictures light-years beyond your current 1.3 MP camera. I'm personally fond of Canon cameras, so look at something over at www.powershot.com.

On March 1st you'll see some reviews that might interest you. ;-)

Jason Dunn

02-28-2004, 07:50 PM

As a public service, I should point out how quotes work since you keep breaking them by accident. ;-) This is how they need to look:

[quote="js415"]Seriously, I'm a big boy, and sort of knew this was the answer already!![/quote]

When you click the QUOTE button, the forum software will automatically set the start and the end code, you just need to trim down the text in the middle to what you want to quote, and avoid alterting the opening and closing code. ;-)

Gary Sheynkman

02-28-2004, 08:09 PM

Ok here we go....

Under 500 will get you a VERY nice fixed lens camera. It will be either a high range 4mp camera or a bit lower on the food chain of 5mp cameras.
-The Sony Cyber Shot DSC-V1 is a great camera for $499 that has recieved good reviews.

-Canon PowerShot S50 is a $449 camera with tons of features but some enthusiast say that the S45 (the 4mp version) will get you less artifacts because the lens is better matched with that sensor. the S45 goes between 300 and 400 but they are disapearing very fast

-The Canon powershot G3 is an awesome 4mp camera that is considered best in class. It's in the $400+ range but well worth it because it offers many manual features

-nikon makes some very nice cameras but the are $$$ w/o being better than the canon which sells a higher volume

----- in this category I would pick the G3 although the Sony it close as well...it depends on the prefered tone of the pics....the canon is a bit softer

----------------
the Canon SD400 is just above the $300 mark and is a very small and very good quality camera...fits nice in the middle i guess.
----------------

now the under 300 range.

-The Canon PowerShot A70 is a great 3mp camera for $299: lots of features...not much will come close to it

-the Sony DSC-P72 Cyber-shot is a nice first-camera ..its as point and shoot as you can get

In this one...go with the Canon...hands down... Thing is with cameras though is a: if u skimp now, you will have to get a better one later anyway (trust me lol) and b: remeber that cameras have hidden costs (memory cards, tripods, etc etc etc)

I recommend going to a best buy or circuit city (just dont listen to what their salesmen have to say....please) and toying around the the cameras to find the one that suits you best.

hope this helps

Gary Sheynkman

02-28-2004, 08:26 PM

I though this deserved a seperated post

Things to look for in a camera:
in order of importance: lens; sensor

You want the maximum sized lens for the maximum sized sensor (not resolution wise)

Let me explain:
A good example is the sony f828. It was a TINY chip that capture 8megapixels. That is not good. It makes noise and Purple Fringing in your pictures. On the other hand, the Digital Rebel (same pricerange, but it is an SLR) has a 6mp and a BIG sensor with a big SLR lens.

This wont matter for most (small ship, small lens) 500 cameras, but I though you should know this.

You want to have relatively the best quality (they are gonna be close if you look at different cameras for the exact same price) but you shold also ask yourself what features might you use in the camera.

Sports?--you need a fast shutter speed
Cool highway shots?--you need slow shutter speed

etc etc etc and etc

You need to drive it down to this: I want to spend $xxx.xx on a camera and $xxx on the other "stuff" for it. I want feature Y and Z but dont care so much for feature X. I want it to be (compact/regular sized) and prefer yada yada yada....

:D

js415

02-28-2004, 08:31 PM

Ok,

I have the resolution/size issue straight in my head now, for a while!!

My next issue is with the compression topic. My dad can change the the quality setting of the picture, in order to save space on a card. If I am reading correctly, these quality settings are changing the compression of the picture.

What exactly does compression do to picture, and why would you do it?

Why would a person pick a very high and nice resolution, and then a lower quality setting? It would seem to me, to get the best picture, you would want to have it always set at the maximum for both.

The next thing, what the heck are "artifacts" in pictures??

Also, is there any way I can get a faster answer, I had to wait almost 2 minutes before my questions were answered. You guys are way toooo fast. How are you watching this site and PPCT's at the same time???
:D

I figured I was the only one watching to boards at the same time on a beautiful Saturday afternoon!!!!!!

Thanks,

Jerry

backpackerx

02-28-2004, 08:35 PM

Maybe this is a real stupid question, or maybe it not an easy one to answer, bit I'm giving it a shot anyway.

Not stupid at all. This was very confusing to me also until recently.

If you're looking for a full featured sub-$300 camera check out the Canon Powershot A70 like Gary said. I have it and am very pleased. It has various manual options and a handy 15fps movie mode with sound. If you mainly just want a good high res camera for snapshots using mostly the Auto setting then you can find a few good 5.0 Megapixels with a very basic feature set for under $300. I think Gateway makes a basic no frills 5.0 MP for $299.

backpackerx

02-28-2004, 08:42 PM

The only reason people in the know choose a lower quality setting is to save space on the memory card. You're right, you're sort of defeating the purpose by choosing a high resolution but then a low quality (high compression) saving method. If quality is the issue and storage size isn't a concern, then you should always use the highest resolution (size) and the highest quality(least compression) save function.

Like they said, the bigger the file size (ie. the setting that lets you take the fewest number of pictures on your memory) the better the quality.

Jason Dunn

02-28-2004, 08:42 PM

What exactly does compression do to picture, and why would you do it?

In short, it destroys it by removing data - the key is, of course, to remove data that the human eye won't notice. ;-)

Why would a person pick a very high and nice resolution, and then a lower quality setting? It would seem to me, to get the best picture, you would want to have it always set at the maximum for both.

Because they don't know any better. ;-) For people that DO know better, let's say you're SURE you're never going to print these, or for some reason quality doesn't matter (!?) and you really want QUANTITY of pictures on your memory card rather QUALITY. With every camera I've ever had, I always set it to the maximum resolution and maximum quality, because you'll never get a second chance at a picture...

The next thing, what the heck are "artifacts" in pictures??

High quality, low level of compression, image is 186 KB:
http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/low-compression.jpg

Low quality, ultra high level of compression, image is 9.38 KB (almost 20 times smaller, but look how ugly it is):
http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/high-compression.jpg

Those little distortions you see? Those are digital artifacts, the result of a harsh compression level. That's far worse than you'd ever see any digital camera do, but I wanted to make them very obvious for you to see. ;-)

Also, is there any way I can get a faster answer, I had to wait almost 2 minutes before my questions were answered. You guys are way toooo fast. How are you watching this site and PPCT's at the same time???

Today is DMT prep day - we're launching on Monday, so much work is being done behind the scenes, and my IMAP email account is open. I'm also showing everyone how useful this site will be. ;-)

I'm going to bow out of this topic for now, because ultimately most of your questions should be answered in a nice front-page article, but this is a good training ground. ;-)

backpackerx

02-28-2004, 08:45 PM

I think it's a pretty good sign that people are getting answers within minutes even before the site goes officially live :) I see only good things in store for DMT and the whole Thoughts media group.

js415

02-28-2004, 09:18 PM

Amazing.....

I know much more now than I did 2 hours ago, and from the help of complete strangers,

Jason, I'm honored I was able to get so many answers straight from "The Guy" himself!! I hope I did not slow you down on getting DMT's ready for the Monday opening.

I am wondering now if there is a point of no return as it relates to Mega Pixels on a camera. Is there a point at which the human eye, or a printer for that matter, can not tell the difference in the quality of a picture.

I would have to guess that anything above 5 MP would be of no use for an average user.

Maybe even 3.2 if I dont plan on printing anything, only viewing them on a computer screen or PPC.

Thanks for all the help,

Jerry

Gary Sheynkman

02-28-2004, 09:25 PM

I am wondering now if there is a point of no return as it relates to Mega Pixels on a camera. Is there a point at which the human eye, or a printer for that matter, can not tell the difference in the quality of a picture.

well this all depends on the print size. On a 4*6 it wont matter that much if its past 4mp. But if you go 8*10 etc etc you will see the difference. There are magazines out there that only use film, but their printers print on a much higher DPI than your average Walmart

So i guess I did not really aswer your question so here it is: It really depends on the printer. What does it matter if you print your 14 megapixel image on a printer that can onlly print 2???

So high MP is very good, but take a look at my last post on the first page

Jason Dunn

02-28-2004, 09:26 PM

I know much more now than I did 2 hours ago, and from the help of complete strangers, Jason, I'm honored I was able to get so many answers straight from "The Guy" himself!! I hope I did not slow you down on getting DMT's ready for the Monday opening.

Glad I could help! We'll call it even if you can tell everyone you know about the launch of DMT on Monday. ;-)

I am wondering now if there is a point of no return as it relates to Mega Pixels on a camera. Is there a point at which the human eye, or a printer for that matter, can not tell the difference in the quality of a picture.

We're getting close to that point now, but we're not quite there yet. I think the resolution of film is about 10 megapixels. Here's an interesting article you might want to read: http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm

I would have to guess that anything above 5 MP would be of no use for an average user.

It really depends on the printing factor. ie: If you want to print out a picture at 16" x 20", you'll want every bit of resolution you can get. ;-) But if you're not going to do much printing, yeah, even 5 MP is overkill from a resolution standpoint. But then you have to think about other factors: lens and sensor quality, shutter speed, camera size, etc.

Gary Sheynkman

02-28-2004, 09:26 PM

I think it's a pretty good sign that people are getting answers within minutes even before the site goes officially live :) I see only good things in store for DMT and the whole Thoughts media group.

thats largely because some of us are physically attached to the internet using an 802.11a connection in our brains 8O

backpackerx

02-28-2004, 09:27 PM

Since many monitors resolution maxes out at 1024x768 resolution you'd definitely hit a wall for computer viewing if you were using the whole screen to view the whole picture. Where more MP would help would be in image editing where you could view a small section of the pic with detailed resoluion on the whole screen.

The rule of thumb I've always heard is that if you only plan on viewing pics on the computer and never make prints bigger than 8x10 then a 3.2 megapixel should be all you need.