TwinTurbo.NET: Nissan 300ZX forum - I'd rather have less good pixels than more bad ->
People Seeking Info
 
   


     
Subject I'd rather have less good pixels than more bad ->
     
Posted by MikeeZ on November 22, 2000 at 3:21 PM
  This message has been viewed 13 times.
     
In Reply To Finally, a man w/ some sense. posted by Michael(Dallas) on November 22, 2000 at 02:52 PM
     
Message : Unfortunately, I shall differ here. Pixels are very important. The more pixels you have, the more detail the image will have. This especially holds true for scenic shots and shots of trees. Also, the general rule of thumb: prints are of 150-200dpi. So w/ a 1600x1200 (2.1 megapixel) image, the largest size "good quality" print would be 8x11 - 6x8.

And here is why - MANY of the higher-end cameras on the market are advertising a higher pixel count than the camera is actually capable of. They are interpolating the pixels IN the camera and lowering the quality of the picture in the process. Examples of these are the Kodak DC290 (2.1 MP camera advertised as 3.3), the Fuji Finepix (2.6 advertised as 4.3, I believe), etc etc. YES, resolution is an important factor because it will determine your max print size and amount to reduce when using for web, etc. However, KNOW the pixels you are purchasing. I would rather have the Nikon 950 @ 2.1 MP than the DC 290 @ 3.3, or the Fuji @ 4.3, IMO!


MikeeZ
Twin Turbo, Stage IV

     
Follow Ups  
     
Post a
Followup

You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.