More pixels/more compression or fewer pixels/less compression?

[Willy Chu49546]

The newest 4 and 5 megapixel cameras obviously create images with very large file sizes. In gereral, if storage space or processing time is a limiting factor, which will produce a better image for printing?

Using the camera's maximum resolution with a lower quality setting (ie, more in-camera compression), OR

Using a lower resolution (fewer pixels), but less compression?

More specifically, I use the Canon CD300 for printing. This 300dpi dye-sub printer produces 4x6 full bleed prints. Therefore, I presume the optimal resolution would be 1200x1800 (4x300=1200, etc.). I plan on buying the new Minolta MD7 which has a resolution of 2560x1920. Should I set the resolution to 1600x1200 and use, for example, the "fine" setting, OR should I use the full 2560x1920 and the "normal" setting?

Or does it not make any difference? Thanks.

 

[md43019]

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to use the highest quality setting on your camera. If you don't need the quality, why not get a cheaper camera?

The newest 4 and 5 megapixel cameras obviously create images with
very large file sizes. In gereral, if storage space or processing
time is a limiting factor, which will produce a better image for
printing?

Using the camera's maximum resolution with a lower quality setting
(ie, more in-camera compression), OR

Using a lower resolution (fewer pixels), but less compression?

More specifically, I use the Canon CD300 for printing. This 300dpi
dye-sub printer produces 4x6 full bleed prints. Therefore, I
presume the optimal resolution would be 1200x1800 (4x300=1200,
etc.). I plan on buying the new Minolta MD7 which has a resolution
of 2560x1920. Should I set the resolution to 1600x1200 and use,
for example, the "fine" setting, OR should I use the full 2560x1920
and the "normal" setting?

Or does it not make any difference? Thanks.

 

[Willy Chu49546]

I think you missed by point.

Bear with me. With the MD7, using 1600x1200 at "normal" compression (7:1) you can get 23 images on a 16MB Compact Flash. Using the full 2560x1920 at "basic" compression (22:1), you can also get 23 images on a 16MB card. In both cases, images would be about 700KB each. But using 2560x1920 with "fine" compression (6:1) allows only 6 images/16MB card! Of course I could get a larger card, but after a while the expense of such large files, increased processing time, etc. adds up. So hence, my question. Given a limit on file size, which combination of settings is better?

You're right, I probably don't need as much resolution as the MD7 provides, given my printer only needs 1200x1800, but there are other reasons I like the camera. Mainly, the zoom lens (28-200mm) which is wider than any other prosumer level digicam. Preliminary reports show low pinchushion distortion (which you get with screw-on wide angle lenses adapters) and very little chromatic aberration. It also has an hot shoe for additional flash.

-Willy

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to use the highest quality
setting on your camera. If you don't need the quality, why not get
a cheaper camera?

 

[md43019]

What I think you should do is try taking photos at both settings and bothing resolutions, and printing and comparing the results at A4 size.

Once you done that, I can be pretty sure than you'll come to the conclusion that spending a $100 on a 128Mb CF card, is a very good idea. Or better still, splash out and get a 1gb microdrive - then you can shoot at highest settings for ages! After all, the ability to take lots more photos than you otherwise would, is surely one of the real joys of digital photography.

I can assure you Willy, if you're serious about taking nice photos with that lovely new camera of yours, once you've printed at it's highest quality settings, you wont want to compromise.

Bear with me. With the MD7, using 1600x1200 at "normal"
compression (7:1) you can get 23 images on a 16MB Compact Flash.
Using the full 2560x1920 at "basic" compression (22:1), you can
also get 23 images on a 16MB card. In both cases, images would be
about 700KB each. But using 2560x1920 with "fine" compression
(6:1) allows only 6 images/16MB card! Of course I could get a
larger card, but after a while the expense of such large files,
increased processing time, etc. adds up. So hence, my question.
Given a limit on file size, which combination of settings is better?

You're right, I probably don't need as much resolution as the MD7
provides, given my printer only needs 1200x1800, but there are
other reasons I like the camera. Mainly, the zoom lens (28-200mm)
which is wider than any other prosumer level digicam. Preliminary
reports show low pinchushion distortion (which you get with
screw-on wide angle lenses adapters) and very little chromatic
aberration. It also has an hot shoe for additional flash.

-Willy

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to use the highest quality
setting on your camera. If you don't need the quality, why not get
a cheaper camera?

 

[Willy Chu49546]

You know, I think you may be absolutely right. Sometimes we can get too carried away with techno details, when we should be simply out enjoying photography.

I can assure you Willy, if you're serious about taking nice photos
with that lovely new camera of yours, once you've printed at it's
highest quality settings, you wont want to compromise.

 

[BillDrew]

I think there are two answers:

1) experiment and find out. The answer will likely be different for different kinds of images depending on contrast, detail, ...

2) get enough memory/microdrive capacity so you can always shoot at the highest resolution and not have to worry about running out.

I'd suggest doing both.

The newest 4 and 5 megapixel cameras obviously create images with
very large file sizes. In gereral, if storage space or processing
time is a limiting factor, which will produce a better image for
printing?

Using the camera's maximum resolution with a lower quality setting
(ie, more in-camera compression), OR

Using a lower resolution (fewer pixels), but less compression?

More specifically, I use the Canon CD300 for printing. This 300dpi
dye-sub printer produces 4x6 full bleed prints. Therefore, I
presume the optimal resolution would be 1200x1800 (4x300=1200,
etc.). I plan on buying the new Minolta MD7 which has a resolution
of 2560x1920. Should I set the resolution to 1600x1200 and use,
for example, the "fine" setting, OR should I use the full 2560x1920
and the "normal" setting?

Or does it not make any difference? Thanks.

 

[Jonathan Senkerik]

Shoting your photo's at the highest resolution will allow you to crop your photo's if you need and you'll still have enough resolution to meet the 300dpi resolution. I don't know how well the Canon will do at 200dpi, but my Epson Photo 700 does just fine. So even if you crop alot, your shots will still look pretty good.

You would really have to do some comparisions to really know. But, I really don't think you'll see any difference either way. Please post the results of your tests.

Jonathan.

The newest 4 and 5 megapixel cameras obviously create images with
very large file sizes. In gereral, if storage space or processing
time is a limiting factor, which will produce a better image for
printing?

Using the camera's maximum resolution with a lower quality setting
(ie, more in-camera compression), OR

Using a lower resolution (fewer pixels), but less compression?

More specifically, I use the Canon CD300 for printing. This 300dpi
dye-sub printer produces 4x6 full bleed prints. Therefore, I
presume the optimal resolution would be 1200x1800 (4x300=1200,
etc.). I plan on buying the new Minolta MD7 which has a resolution
of 2560x1920. Should I set the resolution to 1600x1200 and use,
for example, the "fine" setting, OR should I use the full 2560x1920
and the "normal" setting?

Or does it not make any difference? Thanks.