Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Nikon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 10, 2009, 10:42 AM   #391
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DioneaUK View Post
mr_meg you have illustrated exactly what I was thinking when I was reading through this thread. Your pictures are vastly better than Jack's in every respect (sorry Jack). There is just no comparison.
Well, if I posted HUGE resolutions (like you did) instead of resizing them, my photo's would be better too.
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 12:16 PM   #392
SAH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

HMMM!!!must be looking at the wrong thread because I have seen nothing posted by another camera that really blows away what p90 is putting out.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 12:36 PM   #393
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack55 View Post
Well, if I posted HUGE resolutions (like you did) instead of resizing them, my photo's would be better too.
I'm making a point about sharpness and noise so I have to post at full res - any downsampling will make it unrealistic.

I meant no offense and I actually think that mr_megs pictures are a lot better than mine as well. But why are they better? He has an even older camera than mine. Maybe it is true that packing all those extra pixels into a tiny CCD is not improving image quality as I have heard some people say. My mother uses a Nikon Coolpix 4500, which has half the resolution that my 8800 had and she gets better pictures than anybody I know.
DioneaUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 12:41 PM   #394
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DioneaUK View Post
I'm making a point about sharpness and noise so I have to post at full res - any downsampling will make it unrealistic.
That is the point... downsizing would make it more plain. Your not suppose to put HUGE files on here. See the rules.
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 1:11 PM   #395
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack55 View Post
That is the point... downsizing would make it more plain. Your not suppose to put HUGE files on here. See the rules.
They're on my own server, not on the forum. Doesn't seem to be any rules against that AFAICS.

Can't see how downsampling would make the noise more plain as it will be reduced.
DioneaUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 1:15 PM   #396
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DioneaUK View Post
They're on my own server, not on the forum. Doesn't seem to be any rules against that AFAICS.

Can't see how downsampling would make the noise more plain as it will be reduced.
I can see your new here

What they ask:
Keep the photo to about 750 pixels for the longest side so it can easily viewed by most users, if you want to put a link to a larger version that is fine.

When you have to scroll from right to left, that sucks!
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 1:38 PM   #397
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DioneaUK View Post
Here are some 8800 images for comparison:
I've removed the img tags so that those images are links instead of embedded images within this forum thread.. Please try to keep image dimensions to less than 1024 pixels wide (800 or less is even better) when including them in forum posts here. Keep in mind that a number of our members have lower resolution displays (especially laptop users) and would need to scroll left and right to see the entire thread when larger images are embedded.

If you need something to resize them with, try the free Irfanview using it's Image>Resize/Resample menu choice.

Thanks.

JimC
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 3:35 PM   #398
SAH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default





As we look at these 2 photos I see one that has been cropped(top) as we can tell by the roughness of the edge of the moon and the other that was not cropped(bottom) but only resized as to not have to large of a picture. The 2nd photo was shot at a full 24x zoom plus the 4x digital zoom. Now where i see a difference is that it (bottom)is a bit overexposed on the bright surface which really i was more testing the zoom than anything and hey i am a amatuer by any stretch of the imagination so I overexposed it a bit. So I discount that and look at the termination lines(where dark meets light) of both photos and really the detail is there. I see craters on both and i see shadows from the mountains. Next time I will not use the digital zoom because that does make noise in its own right and i will do a 24x zoom and then crop the photo to see how that will look. Yours definitely has better color no doubt but that is more the user than the equipment.

Last edited by SAH; Jun 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 3:42 PM   #399
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 949
Default

Well... here is my moon shot done with the P90 shot last month.



jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 3:47 PM   #400
SAH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yea jack i still love that picture!! I want to get one like that!!!Awesome!!!
  Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 10:04 PM.