DStuntz
Topic Author
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 9:13 am

Photo Size Limits

Thu May 11, 2006 12:59 pm

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.
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Thu May 11, 2006 1:13 pm

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
 
777MechSys
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:49 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Thu May 11, 2006 1:14 pm

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]
 
glennstewart
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Thu May 11, 2006 2:01 pm

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...
 
DStuntz
Topic Author
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 9:13 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Fri May 12, 2006 2:33 pm

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.
 
jumbojim747
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:05 pm

RE: Photo Size Limits

Fri May 12, 2006 3:05 pm

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
 
Karlok
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2002 4:58 pm

RE: Photo Size Limits

Fri May 12, 2006 4:00 pm

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
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Photo Size Limits

Fri May 12, 2006 4:05 pm

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
 
glennstewart
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Fri May 12, 2006 4:59 pm

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...
 
linco22
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:16 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Fri May 12, 2006 5:47 pm

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
 
DStuntz
Topic Author
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 9:13 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Sat May 13, 2006 2:41 pm

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.
 
glennstewart
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

RE: Photo Size Limits

Mon May 15, 2006 4:44 pm

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...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests