Steve'sDigicams

Boxman · Oct 13, 2004, 12:19 PM

Is it really true that with digicams, you get best results when you take pictures one resolution below the highest available? For example if you had a 5 megapixel camera, you'll get better stills at 4 megapixels? I read this somewhere and I'm curious if this theory is actually valid.

frontier02 · Oct 13, 2004, 1:06 PM

I have never heard of anything like this and I am certainly no expert (as you can tell by my posts), but I can't imagine that it could be true. For example, if you had a 2mp camera, it would not make sense to take a picture at 1mp. I say this because my first digital camera was a 1mp Kodak DC215 and while it took "acceptable" pictures, I always wished for more mp. This may not hold true when you get up to the 5, 6, or 8 mp range.

photosbyvito · Oct 13, 2004, 1:21 PM

i guess it would depend on wat you mean by "better results"

you won't get as much resolution, but you get less noise...maybe?

Vito

Mikefellh · Oct 13, 2004, 1:52 PM

The question is how the camera arrives at the lower resolution picture...assuming it uses the whole imager matrix and resamples, a lower resolution picture can look better only because there's less information. It's like when you look at a poor quality picture on the camera's monitor vs. looking at it on a 19" monitor or print it out to the maximum size...defects aren't as noticable at the lower resolution, but it's a trick since there's less information, and anything like hot pixels gets blended in with the picture.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Oct 13, 2004, 12:19 PM	#1
Boxman Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 10	Is it really true that with digicams, you get best results when you take pictures one resolution below the highest available? For example if you had a 5 megapixel camera, you'll get better stills at 4 megapixels? I read this somewhere and I'm curious if this theory is actually valid.

Oct 13, 2004, 1:06 PM	#2
frontier02 Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 56	I have never heard of anything like this and I am certainly no expert (as you can tell by my posts), but I can't imagine that it could be true. For example, if you had a 2mp camera, it would not make sense to take a picture at 1mp. I say this because my first digital camera was a 1mp Kodak DC215 and while it took "acceptable" pictures, I always wished for more mp. This may not hold true when you get up to the 5, 6, or 8 mp range.

Oct 13, 2004, 1:21 PM	#3
photosbyvito Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 5,710	i guess it would depend on wat you mean by "better results" you won't get as much resolution, but you get less noise...maybe? Vito

Oct 13, 2004, 1:52 PM	#4
Mikefellh Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 1,707	The question is how the camera arrives at the lower resolution picture...assuming it uses the whole imager matrix and resamples, a lower resolution picture can look better only because there's less information. It's like when you look at a poor quality picture on the camera's monitor vs. looking at it on a 19" monitor or print it out to the maximum size...defects aren't as noticable at the lower resolution, but it's a trick since there's less information, and anything like hot pixels gets blended in with the picture.