Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 11, 2010, 1:57 AM   #11
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,598

Which is the basic reason for shooting RAW too.

You see I harbour a silly dream that one day I might be walking along and see THE SHOT and get it. Now what I will want to do with THE SHOT is to print it large and it will secure me fame and fortune too. So I always shoot in RAW mode at the highest resolution possible. Using programs like Bibble, Aperture or Lightroom there is really very little penalty nowadays for shooting RAW and many potential benefits.

And if I do get the shot then it's going to be a picture I work on for days or weeks and will want the best possible file to start with. This is why I never shoot JPG, and certainly never reduced resolution JPG. Because I never go out there thinking "I'm going to take a bunch of really bad photos today so why bother taking them at high quality?"

There is a LOT you can do to THE SHOT if you start off with as much data as you can.

For instance there are some algorithms that are very good at noise reduction and sharpening, but are monstrously processor intensive. On a fast PC it can easily take days to run a single image through a wide-grid Richardson-Lucy image restoration; so it's not worth doing very often. But for THE SHOT? Oh yes!

Now of course I haven't yet got THE SHOT. But there have been quite a few that have pleased me. And in fact on the few occasions where I have had to switch to JPG mode because I was running out of cards I have later dearly wished that I had had the RAW file available.
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2010, 11:34 AM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 163

Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
No, there is no point in reducing the number of pixels captured. Or buying a camera with less pixels.

Likewise, there is no point in buying more MPs, unless X4.5.0 MP - (2576x1932);
4.4 MP - (2576x1716), 3:2;
4.0 MP - (2304x1728);
3.2 mp - 2048 x 1536
1.8 MP - (1552x1164)
doubling resolution requires quadrupling (x4) the number of megapixels.

8mp is NOT double of 4mp.

4sqrt = 28sqrt = 2.83(not double of 2)
16sqrt = 4(double of 2)
16mp is double of 4mp.
100 = 10 x 10
200sqrt = 14.14(not double of 10)
100 x 4 = 400
400sqrt = 20(double of 10)

MPs | resolution
4mp = 2000 x 2000
8mp = 4000 x 2000(not double resolution of 4mp)
16mp = 4000 x 4000(double resolution of 4mp on all sides)

Adding more MPs and increasing size of pic, does not really help you too much. If you have 4mp on a 800x600, and then 8mp on 800x600, then yes, you've doubled the mps;However, if 8mp doubles the size of pic to 1600x1200, then the amount of mps per square inch remains the same.
Ifcourse doubling res but keeping mps low is unadvisable.

As far as I know, no camera allows you to increase from 4mp to 8mp but keep the res(2304x1728, or size of pic).It's like a 52" TV compared to 32" one. If res stays the same, and you sit close to it you will see that 32" looks better.

Last edited by romphotog; Mar 2, 2010 at 11:39 AM.
romphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2010, 1:55 PM   #13
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,598

I'm sure that makes sense inside your own head. Unfortunately as you've written it, it's complete nonsense.
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.