Not much need for fine res?

Rob Patterson · Jun 3, 2000

I don't know about the rest of you 990 owners but I haven't run into a lot of situations where the 2024 X 1536 res is needed. It does help during printing. Nikon seems to downsample the default quite well. Shooting at 1024 X 768 saves a lot of card space.

I think I've only taken a dozen or so images at fine res. That's out of some 500 or 600 images. I snapped this shot today at 2024 X 1536 because I wanted the max res to display the true beauty of this truck tailgate. By the time it's downsized and resharpened in Photoshop, I feel I might just have well shot it in 1024 X 768 and let the camera do it's downsizing. I feel the high res is best reserved for print purposes when large prints are required.

I think it's a little better and may even come into it's own (the larger file) when doing landscapes and stitching.
http://u2.netgate.net/~robdp/alhandros_truk.%4a%50%47

Coly · Jun 3, 2000

I agree with you, Rob. I downsize for the web anyway, and I think the camera's downsizing is just as good as PhotoShop's. I like having BSS, and with the 1024 size the camera can take 6 or more for it to choose from (vs. 2 or 3 at 2048). But tomorrow I'm going to test the situtation with my printer and see if it needs the additional pixels for 8 x 10.

It kind of makes sense to me to let the camera downsize the image before it has been compressed (assuming that's what happens) rather than have PhotoShop do it after it's been jpegged.

Rob Patterson said:
I don't know about the rest of you 990 owners but I haven't run into a
lot of situations where the 2024 X 1536 res is needed. It does help
during printing. Nikon seems to downsample the default quite well.
Shooting at 1024 X 768 saves a lot of card space.

I think I've only taken a dozen or so images at fine res. That's out of
some 500 or 600 images. I snapped this shot today at 2024 X 1536 because
I wanted the max res to display the true beauty of this truck tailgate.
By the time it's downsized and resharpened in Photoshop, I feel I might
just have well shot it in 1024 X 768 and let the camera do it's
downsizing. I feel the high res is best reserved for print purposes when
large prints are required.

I think it's a little better and may even come into it's own (the larger
file) when doing landscapes and stitching.
http://u2.netgate.net/~robdp/alhandros_truk.%4a%50%47

Peter iNova · Jun 3, 2000

Coly said:
Rob Patterson said:

I don't know about the rest of you 990 owners but I haven't run into a
lot of situations where the 2024 X 1536 res is needed. It does help
during printing. Nikon seems to downsample the default quite well.
Shooting at 1024 X 768 saves a lot of card space.

Click to expand...

Agreement. For so much general purpose stuff the mid size pic is so pixel perfect you can save a bunch of space that way. Interstingly, shooting large in Basic compression, then downsampling in Photoshop hands you the opportunity for memory space savings and big image if you need it for strange manipulations (mattes and keying work better big, for instance).

The trade offs are in favor of the smaller image.

http://www.nikontechusa.com/Nikontechnicalnote4.htm

I think you'll find that 8 x 10's need the extra pixels but 5 x 7's don't.

-iNova

Leo Michielsen20483 · Jun 4, 2000

In my opinion HI res has nothing to do with the number of pixels. Isn't the difference between HI, Normal and BASIC just the jpg compression ratio? This influences the overall quality but makes the files indeed a lot smaller.

If I understand correctly you're talking about the difference between Full format and XGA format.

cheers
Leo

Rob Patterson said:
I don't know about the rest of you 990 owners but I haven't run into a
lot of situations where the 2024 X 1536 res is needed. It does help
during printing. Nikon seems to downsample the default quite well.
Shooting at 1024 X 768 saves a lot of card space.

I think I've only taken a dozen or so images at fine res. That's out of
some 500 or 600 images. I snapped this shot today at 2024 X 1536 because
I wanted the max res to display the true beauty of this truck tailgate.
By the time it's downsized and resharpened in Photoshop, I feel I might
just have well shot it in 1024 X 768 and let the camera do it's
downsizing. I feel the high res is best reserved for print purposes when
large prints are required.

I think it's a little better and may even come into it's own (the larger
file) when doing landscapes and stitching.
http://u2.netgate.net/~robdp/alhandros_truk.%4a%50%47

Earl Takasaki · Jun 4, 2000

This is a good reason for an intermediate resolution (1600x1200 or 1280x960). These will give decent prints at 8x10 at some memory savings.

e

Peter iNova said:
Coly said:

Rob Patterson said:

I don't know about the rest of you 990 owners but I haven't run into a
lot of situations where the 2024 X 1536 res is needed. It does help
during printing. Nikon seems to downsample the default quite well.
Shooting at 1024 X 768 saves a lot of card space.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Agreement. For so much general purpose stuff the mid size pic is so pixel
perfect you can save a bunch of space that way. Interstingly, shooting
large in Basic compression, then downsampling in Photoshop hands you the
opportunity for memory space savings and big image if you need it for
strange manipulations (mattes and keying work better big, for instance).

The trade offs are in favor of the smaller image.

http://www.nikontechusa.com/Nikontechnicalnote4.htm

I think you'll find that 8 x 10's need the extra pixels but 5 x 7's don't.

-iNova

Nelson Ford · Jun 4, 2000

I just have a 950, but I never use the 1600x1200 Fine mode. I normally use the XGA Fine so that I don't have to spend time downsizing it on the computer. Ironically, at first I shot strictly in 1600x1200 Normal mode to save space without thinking about the fact that I could get higher quality using XGA Fine. (If I'm not mistaken about how it works.)

Instead of more pixels, future digicams need to concentrate on more & better features.

You mentioned using the larger size for stitching. I do just the opposite. Since I know that a stitched panorama file is going to be a lot larger than normal and that I will have to reduce it in the PC, I instead switch to VGA Fine for doing stitching. Am I overlooking something?

Rob Patterson said:
I don't know about the rest of you 990 owners but I haven't run into a
lot of situations where the 2024 X 1536 res is needed. It does help
during printing. Nikon seems to downsample the default quite well.
Shooting at 1024 X 768 saves a lot of card space.

I think I've only taken a dozen or so images at fine res. That's out of
some 500 or 600 images. I snapped this shot today at 2024 X 1536 because
I wanted the max res to display the true beauty of this truck tailgate.
By the time it's downsized and resharpened in Photoshop, I feel I might
just have well shot it in 1024 X 768 and let the camera do it's
downsizing. I feel the high res is best reserved for print purposes when
large prints are required.

I think it's a little better and may even come into it's own (the larger
file) when doing landscapes and stitching.
http://u2.netgate.net/~robdp/alhandros_truk.%4a%50%47

Lynda Botez · Jun 4, 2000

I used medium most of the time on my 900 for snapshots, but if I'm shooting

something for an art project or work, I choose the highest resolution available..

I crop my photos, and also, I always want to have a high dpi for printing...

It really depends on your use. If you're doing pictures for the web, there is no

reason to take super high res pictures; you end up throwing out the pixels and may

end up with less, than more... If you're printing 8x10, then you need the highest,
and perhaps Genuine Fractals to get a good print...

Coly · Jun 4, 2000

You're right, we're talking about image dimensions. However theoretically the XVGA downsized from 2048 might have more accurate detail because more pixels were imported from the camera. But if the camera uses the full 2048 to make the 1024, then any differnce in perceived resolution would be a difference in the algorithm the camera uses vs what PhotoShop uses, plus the degradation involved in PhotShop working with a jpeg. The camera's 1024 might be better if the end result wanted is a 1024 (XVGA).

Leo Michielsen said:
cheers
Leo

Rob Patterson said:

I don't know about the rest of you 990 owners but I haven't run into a
lot of situations where the 2024 X 1536 res is needed. It does help
during printing. Nikon seems to downsample the default quite well.
Shooting at 1024 X 768 saves a lot of card space.

I think I've only taken a dozen or so images at fine res. That's out of
some 500 or 600 images. I snapped this shot today at 2024 X 1536 because
I wanted the max res to display the true beauty of this truck tailgate.
By the time it's downsized and resharpened in Photoshop, I feel I might
just have well shot it in 1024 X 768 and let the camera do it's
downsizing. I feel the high res is best reserved for print purposes when
large prints are required.

I think it's a little better and may even come into it's own (the larger
file) when doing landscapes and stitching.
http://u2.netgate.net/~robdp/alhandros_truk.%4a%50%47

Click to expand...

DonCohen · Jun 4, 2000

Hi Peter,

Have you, or do you know anybody who has, compared 8x10's printed from the full 2048x1536 in 'fine' vs 'normal' mode?

There's a fair amount of storage space difference, and I generally shoot in full/normal, anticipating printing from these shots.

But I sometimes wonder if I'm giving up significant print quality at 8x10 by shooting normal rather than fine.

Don

Peter iNova said:
I think you'll find that 8 x 10's need the extra pixels but 5 x 7's don't.

-iNova

Search

Not much need for fine res?

Rob Patterson

Guest

Coly

Guest

Peter iNova

Guest

Leo Michielsen20483

Member

Earl Takasaki

Member

Nelson Ford

Guest

Lynda Botez

Guest

Coly

Guest

DonCohen

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts