If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
Some may find this interesting?
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ E. .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
In article >,
"Episteme" > wrote: > Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > E. I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking 18x24 prints with it. Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
"Episteme" > wrote i
> Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward. Ron |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
Episteme wrote:
> Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > E. Yeah, well, Pogue's test doesn't prove what he claims it proves, since he used resized images from the same camera, instead of images from three different cameras. So he actually tested the resizing software and the printer quality, not the camera resolution. But using three different cameras wouldn't prove much either, since they would also differ in lenses, in exposure calculation software/hardware, and in CCD quality. The only valid test answers the question: Does this camera enable you to do what you want to with it? Megapixel count is only one factor to consider, and even though Pogue's test is invalid, it does make a valid point: higher megapixel counts don't mean much for the vast majority of people. Actually, the fact that most cameras come with several resolution settings, defaulted to the worst so that "you can take up 160 pictures" causes more disappointment than anything else. HTH |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
Dave Moorman wrote:
> In article >, > "Episteme" > wrote: > >> Some may find this interesting? >> >> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ >> >> >> E. > > I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking > 18x24 prints with it. > > Dave Sorry, Dave, but you didn't make the print with your camera, but with your printer. That's not a quibble. The printer received imaging data from your imaging software and translated it into data it could use to print that 18x24 image. These two elements in the process have a lot to do with how well your prints turned out. Fact is that up to a point smoothing algorithms can compensate for the limited information in a small image file. Your printer software is built to do just that, since it's designed to make larger than usual prints. You will find that if you print an image with very small detail (such as the leaves of trees in the background) that the limitations of the 5MP camera (and its lens as well) will begin to show. But since we rarely look at a picture with a magnifying glass, these limitations will usually not affect the appearance of the image "at normal viewing distance". You will still have a pleasing print, so enjoy! HTH |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
In article > ,
Wolf > wrote: > Dave Moorman wrote: > > In article >, > > "Episteme" > wrote: > > > >> Some may find this interesting? > >> > >> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > >> > >> > >> E. > > > > I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking > > 18x24 prints with it. > > > > Dave > > Sorry, Dave, but you didn't make the print with your camera, but with > your printer. That's not a quibble. The printer received imaging data > from your imaging software and translated it into data it could use to > print that 18x24 image. These two elements in the process have a lot to > do with how well your prints turned out. Fact is that up to a point > smoothing algorithms can compensate for the limited information in a > small image file. Your printer software is built to do just that, since > it's designed to make larger than usual prints. > > You will find that if you print an image with very small detail (such as > the leaves of trees in the background) that the limitations of the 5MP > camera (and its lens as well) will begin to show. But since we rarely > look at a picture with a magnifying glass, these limitations will > usually not affect the appearance of the image "at normal viewing > distance". You will still have a pleasing print, so enjoy! > > HTH Right you are, HTH. Should have said "from it". I send them into a local camera chain which prints them on a much bigger and better printer than I can afford. Maybe I should hang onto that medium format camera..... Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
or you could stitch images together and blow away the resolution of even
large format cameras... "Dave Moorman" > wrote in message ... > In article > , > Wolf > wrote: > >> Dave Moorman wrote: >> > In article >, >> > "Episteme" > wrote: >> > >> >> Some may find this interesting? >> >> >> >> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ >> >> >> >> >> >> E. >> > >> > I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very >> > good-looking >> > 18x24 prints with it. >> > >> > Dave >> >> Sorry, Dave, but you didn't make the print with your camera, but with >> your printer. That's not a quibble. The printer received imaging data >> from your imaging software and translated it into data it could use to >> print that 18x24 image. These two elements in the process have a lot to >> do with how well your prints turned out. Fact is that up to a point >> smoothing algorithms can compensate for the limited information in a >> small image file. Your printer software is built to do just that, since >> it's designed to make larger than usual prints. >> >> You will find that if you print an image with very small detail (such as >> the leaves of trees in the background) that the limitations of the 5MP >> camera (and its lens as well) will begin to show. But since we rarely >> look at a picture with a magnifying glass, these limitations will >> usually not affect the appearance of the image "at normal viewing >> distance". You will still have a pleasing print, so enjoy! >> >> HTH > > Right you are, HTH. Should have said "from it". I send them into a > local camera chain which prints them on a much bigger and better printer > than I can afford. > > Maybe I should hang onto that medium format camera..... > > Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
In article >,
"Bob Botts" > wrote: > or you could stitch images together and blow away the resolution of even > large format cameras... True! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
I went I read, What a lot of Rectumite. It seems that he is an idiot that likes to treat
his audience/readers like idiots. "Episteme" > wrote in message > Some may find this interesting? > > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ > > > E. > > > > > > .................................................. .............. > Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< > -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- > |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cameras to watch the cameras. | Brent P[_1_] | Driving | 111 | January 31st 07 10:56 PM |
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras | Episteme | Auto Photos | 30 | January 12th 07 08:05 PM |
Digital Radio (UK)? | Peter[_2_] | Audi | 3 | August 15th 06 07:43 PM |
FreeFlatScreenGuide (Site to get free ipods, digital cameras, more) | Stinkbud | BMW | 0 | November 5th 04 03:27 PM |
DIgital Radio | Michael | Saturn | 2 | July 11th 04 07:52 PM |