Resolution Solution

Dave Du Plessis wrote:

Someone once said something to the effect of ‘never take a photo with less than maximum resolution’. That of course, make sense due to the fact of sometimes, photo’s are taken, which could have been, the photo of the year, if it was not for a too small resolution.

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

In Photoshop, the resolution of an image can be changed. Does the result come to the same value as if it was taken with said bitmapage? (does this word exist in the English dictionary (!):-)

If yes, I suddenly got much much more space on my XD cards:-)

No. Photoshop can increase the number of pixels by means of interpolation, but you will not get more detail, just more pixels. Shooting at a higher camera resolution will give more detail, so that is always better. If that would not be the case, why would 8 Mpixel or even 14 Mpixels cameras exist? Everybody would shoot with a webcam and interpolate to as many pixels he/she needed.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hi DDP

One of the beauts about digital photography is that you can try this and see for yourself what the changes make.

eg
1 – set up a still life, nothing complicated. Maybe something shiny, something matt, maybe a bit of text too (a wine bottle with label has most of these) and some text in varying font sizes

2 – find a fixed position for your camera

3 – take a pic at the highest resolution

4 – reduce the resolution one step and take another pic. Repeat this step until you have a pic at each resolution your camera supports.

5 – assess the results on your computer

You can do the same thing for photographic zoom as well

It is, IMHO, a great way to learn the scope of you camera and the links between digital zoom and lens zoom

Have phun!

Articus

"Dave Du Plessis" wrote in message

Someone once said something to the effect of ‘never take a photo with less than maximum resolution’. That of course, make sense due to the fact of sometimes, photo’s are taken, which could have been, the photo of the year, if it was not for a too small resolution.

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

In Photoshop, the resolution of an image can be changed. Does the result come to the same value as if it was taken with said bitmapage? (does this word exist in the English dictionary (!):-)

If yes, I suddenly got much much more space on my XD cards:-)
Dave

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:47:41 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Dave Du Plessis wrote:

Someone once said something to the effect of ‘never take a photo with less than maximum resolution’. That of course, make sense due to the fact of sometimes, photo’s are taken, which could have been, the photo of the year, if it was not for a too small resolution.

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

In Photoshop, the resolution of an image can be changed. Does the result come to the same value as if it was taken with said bitmapage? (does this word exist in the English dictionary (!):-)

If yes, I suddenly got much much more space on my XD cards:-)

No. Photoshop can increase the number of pixels by means of interpolation, but you will not get more detail, just more pixels. Shooting at a higher camera resolution will give more detail, so that is always better. If that would not be the case, why would 8 Mpixel or even 14 Mpixels cameras exist? Everybody would shoot with a webcam and interpolate to as many pixels he/she needed.

….there goes my extra space:-)
Many thanks for your reply, Johan,
but that brings something else to mind.

Fuji maintain to increase 3.2 Mpixels to 6 Mpixels
by interpolation. Reading you here, devaluate there
statement. Is interpolation not a new method being
invented by Fuji?

….and are you saying that using Photoshop CS to
increase the resolution comes to digital zoom?

Dave

Dave Du Plessis wrote in
news::

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

depends on what you plan to do with the image. If it would only be used on screen, say on a web page, then you would be right. But if sometime later the image is going to be used on an 8×10 print, a poster, or even a 3×5 print, that lack of detail/sharpness will be noticed.

Besides, getting more space is cheap considering its reusable.

Articus

Hi DDP
One of the beauts about digital photography is that you can try this and see for yourself what the changes make.
eg

Theo

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

depends on what you plan to do with the image. If it would only be used on screen, say on a web page, then you would be right. But if sometime later the image is going to be used on an 8×10 print, a poster, or even a 3×5 print, that lack of detail/sharpness will be noticed.

Besides, getting more space is cheap considering its reusable.

Thanks Articus & Theo. In line with what you are saying, Theo, I am totaly aware of the fact that on the screen, there’s no dif between either a half mb or 6, but I do sometimes print 8×10’s. And, I have got enough space, (using 64’s & 128’s) but that the question still came to my mind, whether it is necessary to take 6mb photo’s. Now I know not to change my high resolution.

Thanks for the reactions.

Dave

Fuji interpolates 6Mpix straight from CCD, not from packed JPG image as photoshop would, so it makes a bit finer details than PS interpolation, and in some cases (because of fuji super CCD honey-comb structure) make even sharper pictures than native resolution. but it’s not worth the extra space needed for normal shooting. So you can use it for special cases, but normally 3,2 is the best choise.

Some digital camera users only take a pictures, print them and erase the images to the bit-heaven, for those users 2Mpix is the best choise, because normal printing (in at example Fujilab) for 10,2×13,7cm 300ppi gives resolution 1200×1620 which is 1944000pix any extrapixels would only decrease the jpeg artifacts (or size of them)

–Aki Ahonen

"Dave" wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:47:41 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Dave Du Plessis wrote:

Someone once said something to the effect of ‘never take a photo with less than maximum resolution’. That of course, make sense due to the fact of sometimes, photo’s are taken, which could have been, the photo of the year, if it was not for a too small resolution.

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

In Photoshop, the resolution of an image can be changed. Does the result come to the same value as if it was taken with said bitmapage? (does this word exist in the English dictionary (!):-)

If yes, I suddenly got much much more space on my XD cards:-)

No. Photoshop can increase the number of pixels by means of interpolation, but you will not get more detail, just more pixels. Shooting at a higher camera resolution will give more detail, so that is always better. If that would not be the case, why would 8 Mpixel or even 14 Mpixels cameras exist? Everybody would shoot with a webcam and interpolate to as many pixels he/she needed.

…there goes my extra space:-)
Many thanks for your reply, Johan,
but that brings something else to mind.

Fuji maintain to increase 3.2 Mpixels to 6 Mpixels
by interpolation. Reading you here, devaluate there
statement. Is interpolation not a new method being
invented by Fuji?

…and are you saying that using Photoshop CS to
increase the resolution comes to digital zoom?

Dave

and for digital zoom:
I use my Fuji F601 only for snapshots, so i use 2mpix quality, native resolution for my CCD is 3,2, so camera uses those extra pixels for digital zoom, and therefore it doesn’t decrease the image quality for 2mpix

"Dave" wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:47:41 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Dave Du Plessis wrote:

Someone once said something to the effect of ‘never take a photo with less than maximum resolution’. That of course, make sense due to the fact of sometimes, photo’s are taken, which could have been, the photo of the year, if it was not for a too small resolution.

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

In Photoshop, the resolution of an image can be changed. Does the result come to the same value as if it was taken with said bitmapage? (does this word exist in the English dictionary (!):-)

If yes, I suddenly got much much more space on my XD cards:-)

No. Photoshop can increase the number of pixels by means of interpolation, but you will not get more detail, just more pixels. Shooting at a higher camera resolution will give more detail, so that is always better. If that would not be the case, why would 8 Mpixel or even 14 Mpixels cameras exist? Everybody would shoot with a webcam and interpolate to as many pixels he/she needed.

…there goes my extra space:-)
Many thanks for your reply, Johan,
but that brings something else to mind.

Fuji maintain to increase 3.2 Mpixels to 6 Mpixels
by interpolation. Reading you here, devaluate there
statement. Is interpolation not a new method being
invented by Fuji?

…and are you saying that using Photoshop CS to
increase the resolution comes to digital zoom?

Dave

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:56:08 GMT, "Aki Ahonen" wrote:

and for digital zoom:
I use my Fuji F601 only for snapshots, so i use 2mpix quality, native resolution for my CCD is 3,2, so camera uses those extra pixels for digital zoom, and therefore it doesn’t decrease the image quality for 2mpix

Thanx Aki, I’ll settle for:

So you can use it for special cases, but
normally 3,2 is the best choise.

What you said here make common sense (and supply double the space:-)

Dave

Cool
I think the approach I seek to promote is: you are the best judge of your creative aspirations 🙂

BTW – has anyone any experience of Easy Office?

I downloaded a freeware – bit limited in functionality – I think I may be very easily impressed!

It even reads my text back to me reminding me of those heady Amiga days of yore

Ah well, it looks as if 44 USD may be flying through cyberspace sometime soon….

Full compatibility with MS Office (well, as full as they can make it)

Bang goes next week’s free time trying this wonderful bit of kit

Articus

"Dave" wrote in message

Articus

Hi DDP
One of the beauts about digital photography is that you can try this and see
for yourself what the changes make.
eg

Theo

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

depends on what you plan to do with the image. If it would only be used on screen, say on a web page, then you would be right. But if sometime later the image is going to be used on an 8×10 print, a poster, or even a 3×5 print, that lack of detail/sharpness will be noticed.

Besides, getting more space is cheap considering its reusable.

Thanks Articus & Theo. In line with what you are saying, Theo, I am totaly aware of the fact that on the screen, there’s no dif between either a half mb or 6, but I do sometimes print 8×10’s. And, I have got enough space, (using 64’s & 128’s) but that the question still came to my mind, whether it is necessary to take 6mb photo’s. Now I know not to change my high resolution.
Thanks for the reactions.

Dave

As usual Johan posts bunch of words while avoiding answering the OP entirely…

Photoshop itself is a poor image enlarger. However if you use an application like Extensis Pxlsmart or Genuine Fractals you can indeed interpolate (enlarge) your images up to 1000% or more with no, or only minimual loss of detail. As time passes, the art and algorithyms to Interpolate images gets better and better.

Currently I enlarge 6.3 Megapixel images which at 300 dpi are only about A4 size… To A0 size (24" wide) with stunning results. I have also enlarged
3.2 MP images from an Olympus C760 digicam to 20"x 24" with equally high
quality results.

What you can achieve will depend on the quality of the original image, not so much the size of it. Digital image quality generally falls off as the light source does until there is so much sensor noise in the picture, it can’t be enlarged very far at all.

Quite the opposite to what Johan claims, digital cameras do not record more detail at higher megapixels, they just record the detail at a higher density. It is this density that results in a larger picture but it will have no more detail – all else being equal, than one shot at a lower density.

Ryadia
—————————-
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

No. Photoshop can increase the number of pixels by means of interpolation, but you will not get more detail, just more pixels. Shooting at a higher camera resolution will give more detail, so that is always better. If that would not be the case, why would 8 Mpixel or even 14 Mpixels cameras exist? Everybody would shoot with a webcam and interpolate to as many pixels he/she needed.

————————————-
Commercial advertisment removed.
————————————-

"Ryadia_" wrote in message

As usual Johan posts bunch of words while avoiding answering the OP entirely…

So far I have seen Johan give a lot of very good answers here, I cannot say that from you

Photoshop itself is a poor image enlarger. However if you use an

application

like Extensis Pxlsmart or Genuine Fractals you can indeed interpolate (enlarge) your images up to 1000% or more with no, or only minimual loss

of

detail. As time passes, the art and algorithyms to Interpolate images gets better and better.

That is pure non sense. What do you mean by "minimal loss of detail"? Of course you don’t lose detail since you are interpolating. What you lose is the general quality of your image by "streching it" Besides, why get Genuine Fractals when you can get something like Fred Miranda’s Stair interpolation for a fraction of the price and get better results?

Currently I enlarge 6.3 Megapixel images which at 300 dpi are only about

A4

size… To A0 size (24" wide) with stunning results. I have also enlarged
3.2 MP images from an Olympus C760 digicam to 20"x 24" with equally high
quality results.

Stunning for you, I understand that, but we all have different standarts… Just get a proper camera if you want to see "stunning" instead of waisting your money on GF.

What you can achieve will depend on the quality of the original image, not so much the size of it. Digital image quality generally falls off as the light source does until there is so much sensor noise in the picture, it can’t be enlarged very far at all.

So you mean photos are not that good when you don’t have enough light? I am glad you understand the basics of photo-graphy.

Quite the opposite to what Johan claims, digital cameras do not record

more

detail at higher megapixels, they just record the detail at a higher density. It is this density that results in a larger picture but it will have no more detail – all else being equal, than one shot at a lower density.

That is pure non sense again!

Stephane

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

No. Photoshop can increase the number of pixels by means of interpolation, but you will not get more detail, just more pixels. Shooting at a higher camera resolution will give more detail, so that is always better. If that would not be the case, why would 8 Mpixel or even 14 Mpixels cameras exist? Everybody would shoot with a webcam and interpolate to as many pixels he/she needed.

————————————-
Commercial advertisment removed.
————————————-

Stephan wrote:

"Ryadia_" wrote in message

As usual Johan posts bunch of words while avoiding answering the OP entirely…

So far I have seen Johan give a lot of very good answers here, I cannot say that from you

Thanks Stephan. I will not bother to repsond to Ryadia again. It’s clear that he has now declared hinself my personal enemy, because I told him he was wrong on another subject. Very childish indeed, but so be it. I won’t waste my time on him any longer.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hey Joan – don’t let it bug you

Whatever you do please keep on posting

Not all readers are from the same mold (mould?)

Your views are appreciated

Articus

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Stephan wrote:

"Ryadia_" wrote in message

As usual Johan posts bunch of words while avoiding answering the OP entirely…

So far I have seen Johan give a lot of very good answers here, I cannot say
that from you

Thanks Stephan. I will not bother to repsond to Ryadia again. It’s clear that he has now declared hinself my personal enemy, because I told him he was wrong on another subject. Very childish indeed, but so be it. I won’t waste my time on him any longer.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:44:05 +0200, Dave Du Plessis wrote:

Someone once said something to the effect of ‘never take a photo with less than maximum resolution’. That of course, make sense due to the fact of sometimes, photo’s are taken, which could have been, the photo of the year, if it was not for a too small resolution.

This view, takes lots of unnecessary space.

In Photoshop, the resolution of an image can be changed. Does the result come to the same value as if it was taken with said bitmapage? (does this word exist in the English dictionary (!):-)

If yes, I suddenly got much much more space on my XD cards:-)
Dave

I had lots of reaction on this question, which I appreciate; every single one of them. For in case you’s will find this interesting, I have reduced a photo (a zipped 1.5mb ; and this was the photo that originated the question) to 312 kb, and again increased the resolution to 2mb and it printed a lovely A4.
The question still stands whether this could have been done if the original photo was taken at a low resolution.

Thanks again for the answers.

Dave

The question still stands whether this could have been done if the original photo was taken at a low resolution.

Just joined this group so I didn’t see the original post but I have noticed with the digital photography I work with (and we deal with a LOT of digital pix from many different sources – good and bad!) as well as with our own camera, photographs taken at the lower resolution settings already have a tiny bit of the pixelated edge that you don’t want to see. So when we size them up the pixelation (is that even a word?) is more prominent. If I were to reduce the resolution on a high-res photo and then sampled it back up it would look better than the lower-res photo (but not as good as my original hi-res) because I had good clean edges to start with.
Hope this makes sense!
Stacy