Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Size Limits  
User currently offlineDStuntz From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 42 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2798 times:

On my 6-megapixel digital camera, I have several options for the Image Size setting:
-- 6M(2816*2112) -- way too large for A.net
-- 3M(2048*1536) -- still too large.
-- 2M(1632*1224) -- almost ideal, but the width is still a hair too large.
-- VGA(640*480) -- probably too small (low resolution) for acceptance.

I'm not sure what to do here -- the 2M setting is just a hair too large, and only on one dimension. The next lower setting is the VGA, which would probably be too low of a resolution for acceptance. 1632 is the standard width for a 2 migapixel photo, but I read that 1600 is width limit for uploads. I wonder why the width limit would be just a hair below the standard width of a 2M pixel photo.

It seems to me that if the height limit was increased from 1024 to 1600, the width limit could at least be increased by 2% (from 1600 to 1632). I would greatly appreciate any advice you may have. Thanks.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Use the highest setting possible then when you process your pictures you crop them and resize accordingly. I don't think shooting @ 2 MP setting would quite cut it here  Wink

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offline777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Set camera to the highest quality. Crop and resize in a photo editor like photoshop.

-Erick

Edit: Ivan beat me to it.

[Edited 2006-05-11 06:15:02]

User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

As per above  Smile

ALWAYS shoot highest possible resolution and preferably, the lowest possible JPEG compression (if option is available). Some people even shoot RAW (if option if available).

What resolution should I crop to?

You camera uses the screen optimised ratio of 4:3 instead of the 35mm ratio of 3:2 (NOTE: Most digitals are screen ratio, and DSLR's film are 35mm ratio).

If you're going to frame a shot as per the viewfinder/screen and want to maintain that framing, you would have to maintain the ratio. For this reason, I would probably recommend the following 4:3 crop sizes:

a) 1024 x 768
b) 1152 x 864
c) 1280 x 1024

For those reading with DSLR's I recommend sticking with the film-like, 3:2 ratio.

a) 1024 x 683
b) 1152 x 768
b) 1200 x 800



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineDStuntz From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2717 times:

Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 2):
Set camera to the highest quality. Crop and resize in a photo editor like photoshop.

I could do that, but wouldn't the final result be the same as if I chose a smaller size (in pixels) and didn't need to resize?

For example, I assume that when resizing a 2800-pixel-wide photo down to a 1400-pixel-wide one, and adjusting the height proportionately, each pixel of the result would be the "average" color of a group of 4 from the original, thus reducing the resolution. Isn't that also what "compression" means -- taking an image from a large grid of pixels and fitting it into a smaller number of pixels?

Perhaps that the resolution of the original is so high that it can be reduced a bit and still be plenty high enough to be accepted (I guess it would have to be since a 2800-pixel-wide photo would be too large for acceptance). But if that's the case, wouldn't it be just as good to take a smaller-sized photo if it's already the size to which the larger photo would need to be downsized?

I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thanks.


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting DStuntz (Reply 4):
But if that's the case, wouldn't it be just as good to take a smaller-sized photo if it's already the size to which the larger photo would need to be downsized?

No because if you did that you will leave yourself short when you need to crop or level etr.
If you think you can shoot a perfectly framed and perfectly leveled and composed shot then shoot at the size you mentioned and upload straight from the camera.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineKarlok From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

Quoting DStuntz (Reply 4):
For example, I assume that when resizing a 2800-pixel-wide photo down to a 1400-pixel-wide one, and adjusting the height proportionately, each pixel of the result would be the "average" color of a group of 4 from the original, thus reducing the resolution. Isn't that also what "compression" means -- taking an image from a large grid of pixels and fitting it into a smaller number of pixels?

Perhaps that the resolution of the original is so high that it can be reduced a bit and still be plenty high enough to be accepted (I guess it would have to be since a 2800-pixel-wide photo would be too large for acceptance). But if that's the case, wouldn't it be just as good to take a smaller-sized photo if it's already the size to which the larger photo would need to be downsized?

I think you shouldlearn more about processing before you start upload to a.net

Kar-lok


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 5):
No because if you did that you will leave yourself short when you need to crop or level etr.
If you think you can shoot a perfectly framed and perfectly leveled and composed shot then shoot at the size you mentioned and upload straight from the camera.

Absolutely right.

Another consideration is printing. If you ever want to make large-sized prints for framing, it is much better to have a big file than a small one.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting DStuntz (Reply 4):
Isn't that also what "compression" means -- taking an image from a large grid of pixels and fitting it into a smaller number of pixels?

The compression we talk about on this site is JPEG compression. JPEG's are compressed images. You might have heard of mp3's, the music commonly found on iPod's and other audio players... you might have also heard of DVD's. Both the mp3 music and mpg used by DVD video are compressed formats. Both formats are younger siblings of the JPEG.

Just as high compression of an mp3 would result in poor quality music, and a highly compressed DVD would result in poor audio and video quality, so too a highly compressed JPEG results in poor image quality.

Quoting DStuntz (Reply 4):
wouldn't it be just as good to take a smaller-sized photo if it's already the size to which the larger photo would need to be downsized?

Back in the good old days of records and cassette's did you ever record music from a record to a cassette? Then make a copy of that cassette, and a copy of the copy?

What would the music sound like if you made a copy of a copy of a copy?
Pretty bad, right?

Well, I know this is a very loose metaphor, but digital technology is great for many reasons. One of those is that when digital is stored, the information doesn't deteriorate. A copy is identical to the original. A copy of a copy is the same as the original.

It's when you start to manipulate/change the original that you lose quality. Reduce the resolution by 4, you lose 3/4 of the information. You compress the image and you lose a LOT of the information.

It's best to start with the highest quality, most amount of information possible. Manipulate, compress, resize from the original.

Now getting back to the point....

If you use the smaller image, you're already starting at a point where a lot of the information, the quality is removed.

----

Now for information sake, I'll make a little point about size and compression.
Back in the early to mid 80's some smarty pants came up with the JPEG compression algorithm. It's been quite awesome because the size reduction is about 10 to 1, with a much less noticible reduction in quality.

But if we didn't have compression, we would be in trouble....

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 8):
Glenn

Glenn, I must say, you should have your own page on this site! Your contributions of late have been great additions to the forum. Exactly what we need to see. Kudos to you!

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlineDStuntz From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2637 times:

Quoting DStuntz (Thread starter):
It's best to start with the highest quality, most amount of information possible. Manipulate, compress, resize from the original.

Now that I think of it, it makes sense. Thanks for the advice.


User currently offlineGlennStewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 9):
Glenn, I must say, you should have your own page on this site! Your contributions of late have been great additions to the forum. Exactly what we need to see. Kudos to you!

Colin - appreciate the comments.
I'm an IT geek.... DSLR technology is where my two world's collide.

I'll keep on posting where possible  hyper 

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Minimum Photo Size Changed? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 10:28:19 by ThierryD
New Size Limits? posted Thu May 18 2006 19:13:19 by Aero145
Photo Size Question posted Fri Apr 21 2006 11:12:47 by Blazingcessna
Upload Photo Size Differences? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:52:12 by Manc
Photo Size Rules Clarification - 1000 Or 1024 Px? posted Tue Dec 7 2004 05:00:29 by QantasA332
Photo Size posted Fri Mar 7 2003 05:17:26 by Mx330
Upload Problem- Photo Size posted Tue Apr 16 2002 03:50:11 by Airplanenut
Photo Usage (size) Help Required posted Tue Jul 18 2006 21:43:11 by LGW
USM Settings For Different Size Photo's? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 13:03:28 by LHRSIMON
Reduce The Size Of A Photo posted Tue Mar 22 2005 15:10:37 by SK A340